There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn’t true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true. —Soren Kierkegaard. "…truth is true even if nobody believes it, and falsehood is false even if everybody believes it. That is why truth does not yield to opinion, fashion, numbers, office, or sincerity–it is simply true and that is the end of it" – Os Guinness, Time for Truth, pg.39. “He that takes truth for his guide, and duty for his end, may safely trust to God’s providence to lead him aright.” – Blaise Pascal. "There is but one straight course, and that is to seek truth and pursue it steadily" – George Washington letter to Edmund Randolph — 1795. We live in a “post-truth” world. According to the dictionary, “post-truth” means, “relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief.” Simply put, we now live in a culture that seems to value experience and emotion more than truth. Truth will never go away no matter how hard one might wish. Going beyond the MSM idealogical opinion/bias and their low information tabloid reality show news with a distractional superficial focus on entertainment, sensationalism, emotionalism and activist reporting – this blogs goal is to, in some small way, put a plug in the broken dam of truth and save as many as possible from the consequences—temporal and eternal. "The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those who speak it." – George Orwell “There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn’t true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true.” ― Soren Kierkegaard
When reporting on crime, it’s of paramount importance that journalists adhere to a strict code of ethics, which involves using AP-approved inclusionary terms to identify assailants of indeterminate gender. For example, if a person shoots and kills someone, and you can’t readily discern their gender, try identifying them as the most inclusive “gunperson.”
Here are some more inclusive terms to use when describing non-binary criminals:
Don’t Say:Hitman
Say:Hit-They
Designating contract killers as being of a specific gender would be more violent than any murder.
Don’t Say:Thief
Say:Non-Owning Individual
“Thief” is an ugly word that provides little to no inclusion or consideration for the feelings or financial condition of the perpetrator.
Don’t Say:Sex Worker
Say:Gender Worker
“Sex worker” is passé. It may have been an upgrade from “prostitute,” but everyone now knows that “sex” and “gender” are not interchangeable terms. Use the right one.
Don’t Say:Kidnapper
Say:Themnapper
When you’re unsure of both the suspect’s and the victim’s gender or age, it’s best to use the most inclusive pronoun available.
Don’t Say:Rapist
Say:Non-Cis-Sexual-Assaulter
It’s important to distinguish rapists who operate outside of the typical societal boundaries of heteronormativity.
Don’t Say:Carjacker
Say:Carjacker/jiller
The presence of the term “jack” could confuse hearers into the misconception that only cis-males can steal vehicles at gunpoint. It’s time to expand people’s minds.
Don’t Say:Criminal
Say:Non-Conforming Law-Disregarder
While some people fit the traditional mold of obeying laws, science tells us that is not the case 100% of the time. Those who are more law-fluid must be included.
Any aspiring journalists out there should begin using the terms listed above immediately. What are some other inclusive terms for criminals? Post your suggestions in the comments below.
Exciting news last week for Christians and conservatives who are concerned about children being bullied into self-mutilation. A great victory has been achieved. The first ever lawsuit made by a detransitioner has succeeded. I’ve blogged before that the medical personnel who do these treatments and surgeries are only interested in one thing: MONEY. And when you take away their MONEY, a funny thing happens. They stop transing kids.
On Jan. 30, a New York State jury awarded a 22-year-old woman, Fox Varian, $2 million in damages for her 2019 “gender-affirming” double mastectomy, which she came to deeply regret. She was 16 years old at the time. This settlement against Varian’s psychologist and plastic surgeon is the first legal judgment imposed upon those performing such mutilations.
According to this article in the New York Post, the people who lost the lawsuit pushed bullied the parents with threats that the child would self-end:
Psychologist Kenneth Einhorn and surgeon Simon Chin were held responsible in Westchester County Supreme Court in White Plains for ignoring standards of care and procedural guardrails by pressuring the minor into addressing gender dysphoria with permanent surgery, the jury decided.
Lawyers for Varian pointed the finger at Einhorn, saying he “drove the train” and was “putting the idea in Fox’s head” that she needed to change her gender with surgery, according to the report.
Varian’s mother, Claire Deacon, testified that she was against the surgery, but consented to it out of fear her daughter would commit suicide, according to the outlet.
“This man was just so emphatic, and pushing and pushing, that I felt like there was no good decision,” Deacon told The Epoch Times.
That’s the standard approach, because they have to get that insurance money somehow! According to the Federalist article, there are at least 5,200 teen girls who have had their breasts removed by adults who got paid to do it. And there are 27 other detransitioner lawsuits still waiting on a verdict. All it takes is one win, though and suddenly the medical associations that approved of these surgeries are changing their tunes.
In a watershed moment, on February 3, 2026, the American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS) issued an official position statement recommending that a key step of “gender-affirming” care—surgical intervention—be delayed until the patient is “at least 19 years old.” The recommendation against performing gender-affirming procedures in minors extends to all types of gender-related surgeries, including breast/chest, genital, and facial surgeries. However, the ASPS statement goes much farther than merely advising surgeons to delay surgery. It raises serious evidentiary and ethical concerns about the entire gender-affirming treatment pathway for youth, including social transition, puberty blockers, and cross-sex hormones.
But that’s not the only one, here’s another, reported in the far-left Washington Post: (archived)
The American Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics recommend transition surgeries primarily for adults but say adolescents can receive them on a case-by-case basis.
The AMA appears to now be taking a more cautious stance. A spokesperson for the AMA said Tuesday that “the evidence for gender-affirming surgical intervention in minors is insufficient for us to make a definitive statement” but that it agrees with ASPS that surgeries for minors should be generally deferred to adulthood in the absence of clear evidence.
Was the AMA’s previous stance on transing the kids based in scientific evidence? Well, the AMA’s previous stance contradicted years of research I’ve covered on this blog, including:
The UK’s Cass Review, which I discussed in my May 2025 post linked above, is a gold-standard analysis. It found no consistent mental health benefits from puberty blockers or hormones, yet the AMA pushed these treatments regardless. I’m blogging about the gold standard studies, but AMA people thought that ordinary people were not following the science. We are. Christians and conservatives bound our worldviews off of what science tells us. We are not being swayed by Big Medicine and Big LGBT to suppress the science. The AMA argued gender-affirming care reduces distress, but the Cass Review and other studies show no consistent mental health benefits.
I just think it’s amazing that these medical doctors who threaten parents with their child self-ending and bragged about how transing the kids was “a big money-maker” are now suddenly very cautious. All it took was a 2-million-dollar lawsuit and suddenly, scientific evidence matters after all. And that’s what Christians had been saying all along – let the scientific evidence inform our decisions about moral issues. It shouldn’t just be be a situation of wanting insurance money.
Many Christians think that people who reject Christianity can be trusted to make good moral decisions. “Of course my doctor would never mutilate my child for money” Christian think. “No need for me to study and make a case against abortion, same-sex marriage, and transgenderism”. Well, not so fast.
When a person kicks God out of his or her worldview, it actually does have a big effect on how that person sees morality. It doesn’t matter that the doctor looks nice, dresses nice, sounds nice, and has fancy degrees. When God is gone from a doctor’s worldview, you cannot expect them to behave morally. And that should be a concern to all Christians and conservatives, because we all get old one day. We will all have to rely on health care providers.
We judge too much by appearances. We think a rich doctor must be morally good. It’s just not the case. It’s our job as Christians to challenge everyone to think more closely about moral issues like abortion, same-sex marriage, transgenderism, etc. We have to study to get the evidence and then we have to not care about the loss of reputation.
Rose and I did a couple of Knight and Rose Show episodes about this topic. One with Frank Turek and one with Jay Richards, so check them out. And check out my previous posts.
“The best means of forming a manly, virtuous, and happy people will be found in the right education of youth. Without this foundation, every other means, in my opinion, must fail.” —George Washington (1784)
TrumpRx launches: Americans can now visit TrumpRx.gov to search for discounts on some of the most popular and overpriced prescription drugs. The government website allows consumers to print a discount coupon for Ozempic, for instance, offering 66-81% off, which can be redeemed at a local pharmacy. This is the result of President Donald Trump’s negotiations with pharmaceutical companies to secure most-favored-nation pricing for Americans. Since U.S. pharmaceutical companies produce most innovative new drugs on the market, it is perhaps surprising that foreign countries have been getting better deals on those drugs. Americans with good health insurance likely already have better deals than what TrumpRx offers, but for those with bare-minimum plans or no coverage at all, the website offers a significant improvement.
Jobs report: The official January jobs report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics has been postponed to February 11 due to the recent government shutdown. However, a survey conducted by the firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas found that employers cut 108,435 jobs last month. That total is the highest number of jobs cut in January since 2009. Furthermore, compared to last year, roughly 50,000 jobs were cut. While these numbers look concerning, JPMorgan suggested that the totals were misleading, noting that “this January was much more similar to recent January values than it was to 2009.” A report from ADP Research estimates that just 22,000 jobs were added to the private sector last month, yet Evercore ISI estimates that payroll employment increased by 75,000. A clearer economic picture should be known next week.
Harris rebrands: Former Vice President and failed 2024 Democrat presidential candidate Kamala Harris is launching her new digital “Headquarters” in an effort to rebrand herself following her dismal performance against Donald Trump. Harris has partnered with People for the American Way to reach the “next-generation” of voters ahead of the 2026 midterms. Harris, infamous for her word salad non-answers to questions, coupled with a maniacal laugh, would seem to be more of a political liability to Democrats’ electoral ambitions than an asset. She desperately wants to play a role in the American political landscape, but it may end up being little more than that of a clown.
Illegal truckers kill four more Americans: Kyrgyzstani illegal immigrant Bekzhan Beishekeev killed four Amish men when he crossed into the left lane and struck the van they were riding in on Tuesday. A father, two of his sons, and a family friend are dead, and more are injured because of the incredible number of illegals with commercial driver’s licenses plaguing American roads. Beishekeev was arrested on the scene under a bench warrant related to an ICE detainer. This stretch of rural Indiana state road has seen a significant increase in semi-traffic in recent months, likely to evade a nearby weigh station. Truckers used to avoid weigh stations if their haul was sketchy, but now the drivers, and even their companies, are illegitimate. Chameleon carriers are a network of trucking companies run by Kyrgyzstani drivers that use magnetic logos and bogus DOT numbers to evade authorities and continue driving after crashes.
Dem Senate candidate insists his hands are clean in Iryna Zarutska case: Just because DeCarlos Brown Jr., the monster caught on video stabbing Iryna Zarutska to death on a train in North Carolina, was given a lenient judgment at the same time that then-Gov. Roy Cooper released thousands of criminals onto the streets due to COVID-19 does not mean that Cooper is to blame for Zarutska’s death, insists Cooper’s Senate campaign. In September 2020, Brown was released from custody and sentenced to a year of supervision before being arrested again in February 2021. That month, a hearing officer decided to allow supervision to continue rather than return him to prison. That same day was also the cutoff date for 3,500 violent and nonviolent prisoners set to be released. Cooper insists these matters are unrelated and that since Brown completed minimum sentence after minimum sentence, justice demanded his release.
Karen Bass hijacked Palisades report: The disaster of the preventable Pacific Palisades fire, now a year past, should have cost Los Angeles Democrat Mayor Karen Bass her job. Bass’s incompetent leadership was exposed to the world, yet she’s still living in the mayor’s mansion. Indeed, Bass has focused her efforts on directing others to conceal her incompetence and missteps. This is evidenced by recent remarks from LA Fire Chief Jaimie Moore, who admitted, “It is now clear that multiple drafts [of the report] were edited to soften language and reduce explicit criticism of the department leadership in that final report.” While Bass has denied any involvement in altering the Palisades fire report, two sources within the mayor’s office dispute her claim.
Medal of Honor awarded: Having sacrificed himself to shield and save others, Army Staff Sgt. Michael Ollis is finally being awarded the Medal of Honor. Ollis was 24 when he was killed by a suicide bombing in Afghanistan in 2013, using his body to protect a Polish army officer and other American officers who were on the base. The soldier’s sister, Kimberly Ollis-Losciavo, has been seeking recognition for her brother’s brave action but was denied by both the Obama and Biden administrations. President Trump reopened the case and called Ollis’s parents with the news of their son’s award. Kimberly responded to the recognition as “bittersweet validation … after 13 years of really not being validated by the federal government,” but noted that they are “thrilled.” Following Ollis’s death, the family worked to raise money for military-related causes and was also able to get a Staten Island ferry named after Ollis.
Imani Kelif admits that he has XY chromosomes: “I have never felt a punch like this,” said an Italian Olympic female boxer after spending 46 seconds in the ring with Imane Khelif. Readers may remember the controversy over the “transgender” boxer in the 2024 Olympics; of course, it’s only now, as the 2026 Winter Olympics begin, that the truth comes out. Not only has Khelif now admitted in an interview to having a Y chromosome, but also the SRY gene carried by that chromosome that triggers male sexual development. Despite Leftmedia and the Algerian government’s insistence that Khelif was a woman — labeling anyone suggesting otherwise a transphobic bigot — it turns out our eyes weren’t lying. Khelif was born with a rare condition, and doctors likely declared Khelif a girl due to malformed genitalia. However, with the onset of puberty, Khelif developed as a typical male.
OPM readies new rule making firing federal workers easier: The Office of Personnel Management has now made it easier for President Trump to fire federal workers at will. On Thursday, OPM finalized a new rule that creates a new category of career federal employees whose positions are directly policy-related. OPM Director Scott Kupor explained, “This rule preserves merit-based hiring, veterans’ preference, and whistleblower protections while ensuring senior career officials responsible for advancing President Trump’s agenda can be held to the same performance expectations that exist throughout much of the American workforce.” This new rule will apply to roughly 50,000 federal workers. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt welcomed the new rule, stating, “I think if people aren’t doing their jobs, if they aren’t showing up for work, if they’re not working on behalf of this president, they’re not welcome to work for him at all.”
Headlines
Key participant in 2012 Benghazi attack that killed four Americans is in custody (The Hill)
Self-identified Antifa member arrested after allegedly threatening ICE agents (Fox News)
Man accused of operating illegal biolab in Las Vegas tied to CCP (Washington Times)
11 charged in “marriage fraud” scheme for allegedly paying U.S. service members to wed Chinese nationals (CBS News)
The cultural protections for the diabolical practice of “gender-affirming care” are starting to crumble. This week, the American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS) issued a position statement against gender affirmation for minors. The timing is fascinating, because Fox Varian — a detransitioner — recently won a $2 million malpractice lawsuit against her psychologist and surgeon.
You’d think that as representatives of plastic surgeons, the ASPS would only disavow the part they usually deal with: gender mutilation surgery. But no — the group also came out against cross-sex hormones for gender-confused kids.
ASPS concludes there is insufficient evidence demonstrating a favorable risk-benefit ratio for the pathway of gender-related endocrine and surgical interventions in children and adolescents. ASPS recommends that surgeons delay gender-related breast/chest, genital, and facial surgery until a patient is at least 19 years old.
It also added this caveat, which concerns the fact that it believes minors are not in a position to understand the life-long consequences of what they are asking for:
ASPS acknowledges that many plastic surgical clinical recommendations and standards rely on lower levels of evidence compared to those of other medical specialties. However, ethical decision-making in medicine does not depend on evidence quality alone, but on the relationship between evidence uncertainty, anticipated benefit, potential harm, and patient vulnerability.
This very clear and firm stance against the brutal and barbaric practice of “gender-affirming care” for children won the praise of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. “We commend the American Society of Plastic Surgeons for standing up to the overmedicalization lobby and defending sound science,” Kennedy triumphantly said. “By taking this stand, they are helping protect future generations of American children from irreversible harm.”
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Administrator Mehmet Oz also applauded ASPS’s move. “When the medical ethics textbooks of the future are written, they’ll look back on sex-rejecting procedures for minors the way we look back on lobotomies,” Oz stated. “I applaud the American Society of Plastic Surgeons for placing itself on the right side of history by opposing these dangerous, unscientific experiments.”
The ASPS isn’t alone in opposing pediatric gender medicine. The American Medical Association, which hasn’t entirely capitulated, nevertheless told National Review, “The AMA agrees with ASPS that surgical interventions in minors should be generally deferred to adulthood.”
For the AMA, this is a major concession. It was originally pro-“gender affirmation,” including surgical interventions, until five seconds ago. As The Daily Wire pointed out, the AMA stated after the Supreme Court’s United States v. Skrmetti decision last June that it was “disappointed” because it “opens the door to further intrusion into patient care.” That SCOTUS ruling essentially green-lighted state bans on child gender mutilation surgery.
Children’s Minnesota Hospital has also announced that it will no longer be providing pediatric gender care, though its reasoning isn’t as altruistic as ASPS’s. CMH decided to discontinue giving kids cross-sex hormones, puberty blockers, and gender mutilation surgeries because of “threats from the federal government.” Whatever makes these people actually do the right thing, I guess.
Whether doctors are doing the right thing out of fear of lawsuits, threats from the federal government, or simply out of ethical inclination, it’s a major victory in the fight for sanity.
The fight is far from over, however. Author J.K. Rowling had a poignant response to the Fox Varian verdict, posting:
This will go down in history as one of the worst medical scandals of all time. Adults inside and outside the medical profession sold troubled young people like Varian the idea that all of their complex trauma would be resolved by removing healthy body parts.
As more and more detransitioners arrive in court, the public will learn the full extent of the harm done to kids in the name of an ideology. Clinicians performing these ‘treatments’ will go down in history as barbarous activists who betrayed a sacred oath: to do no harm. But we should never forget how many people outside the medical profession urged these young people on, gleefully assuring them that anyone advising caution was an evil bigot. There are people in elitist professions like publishing and academia, not to mention politicians and celebrities with young fan bases, who did all they could to champion the idea of gender identity, and kept pushing it even as the evidence of harm mounted. They’re just as culpable as the clinicians. Too lazy to think more deeply than the fashionable mantras that got them social media likes, too arrogant to look at evidence from anyone outside their political bubble, they’ve slurred whistleblowers and attacked anyone with valid questions. In doing so, they’ve created a cultural climate without which this appalling tragedy could not have taken place.
Never forget, because only by learning the lesson can we stop this happening again.
Other detransitioners have also pointed out that while these victories are palpable, they didn’t come soon enough to save them.
Unfortunately, other important medical bodies have actually doubled down on their endorsement of this experimental, damaging, and irreversible method of treating gender pathology. The American Academy of Pediatrics stated, “The A.A.P. continues to hold to the principle that patients, their families and their physicians — not politicians — should be the ones to make decisions together about what care is best for them.”
The hubris of these medical professionals continuing to align themselves with the “transing the kids” lobby is ultimately going to prove their undoing. Detransitioners will be the key to bringing down their pseudoscientific experimentation on kids.
Thomas Gallatin: Leftmedia Frets Over Whiteness at Winter Olympics — The Associated Press is concerned that there are not enough brown faces amongst European nations’ Winter Olympic National teams.
Douglas Andrews: He Feared a ‘Fascist Takeover’ — Donald Trump’s OMB director, Russell Vought, narrowly avoided being gunned down at his suburban DC home by a Trump-deranged leftist.
Nate Jackson: Justice Jackson’s Grammy for Partisan Hackery — “There are serious questions regarding [her] participation in such a brazenly political, anti-law enforcement event and her ability to remain an impartial member of the Supreme Court.”
Brian Mark Weber: The President Pitches Trump Accounts — “Decades from now, I believe the Trump Accounts will be remembered as one of the most transformative policy innovations of all time.”
Gary Bauer: Democrats Demand Amnesty for Illegals — Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries just released a list of dozens of demands that would destroy illegal immigration enforcement.
Mark Alexander: Profiles of Valor: The Immortal Chaplains — “Chaplains have been a strong, steady, and courageous presence in every major conflict beginning with the Revolutionary War, and today we continue building spiritual readiness so that our soldiers can endure in any future fight.”
Ron Helle: Rebranding — There is nothing wrong with branding. But when rebranding hits the church of Jesus Christ, we may have gone a bridge too far.
Bessent Obliterates House Dems — Ben Shapiro reacts to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent schooling Democrats during a hearing.
SHORT CUTS
Godwin’s Law
“Out-of-control ICE agents are terrorizing our communities. … They’re tearing people out of their homes, out of the windows of their cars, and illegally detaining people who have brown skin. This is fascism, pure and simple.” —Rep. Emily Randall (D-WA)
“When the Americans liberated Dachau after World War II, after the Holocaust, Dwight D. Eisenhower said, ‘Take pictures of these concentration camps, because years will go by and people will not believe this happened.’ So, this administration does not really like somebody like Don Lemon who has a camera, who has a position like we do in a way to speak to the people and tell them what really is going on.” —”The View” co-host Joy Behar
Dumb & Dumber
“I bet you there are a lot of people that voted for Trump that wish that Kamala Harris is in the White House.” —”The View” co-host Sunny Hostin
“The Clintons are playing chess while everybody else is playing checkers.” —Sunny Hostin
Truth Bomb
“Cisgender is a made-up word. … That means nothing. Do not call me cisgender. I am a woman.” —Rep. Harriet Hageman (R-WY)
For the Record
“Americans are divided on whether enforcement should target only criminal illegal immigrants or extend more broadly. But the overwhelming consensus is clear: Targeting criminal illegal immigrants is popular. That is precisely why Democrats are attempting to blur the distinction.” —Ben Shapiro
“Yet again, the Left’s worldview is on full display. The ‘enemy’ is not gang members or drug pushers. It’s parents. Just like the ‘enemy’ is not criminal illegal aliens, but American citizens and law enforcement.” —Gary Bauer
“A nation that shrugs at repeated incursions invites more. America must respond with clarity, enforcement, and consequences before normalization becomes negligence.” —Armstrong Williams
Belly Laugh of the Day
“I’m black. I’m American. I have a DD-214. I have a law degree. I own a company. I’m running for Congress. But dadgumit, I cannot seem to figure out how to obtain a valid ID to save my life. Pass the SAVE ACT!” —Texas congressional candidate Sholdon Daniels making fun of the soft bigotry of low expectations
And Last…
“Democracy may die in darkness, but the Washington Post is dying in the light of day. RIP.” —Laura Ingraham
ON THIS DAY in 1911, Ronald Reagan was born in Tampico, Illinois. In 1981, he took office as our nation’s 40th president, the greatest of the 20th century. Our motivation in our humble shop can be summed up in the final lines of Reagan’s Farewell Address: “We did it. We weren’t just marking time. We made a difference. We made the city stronger, we made the city freer, and we left her in good hands.”
I was asked by a friend to write something about what’s going on with leftist white women aged 18-44 these days. Everyone has seen the videos of these women using violence against federal law enforcement as they go about their duties removing violent criminals who should not be inside the USA. In this post, I’ll go over a few recent articles that talk about this problem, and identify the cause of it. I really hope this will help you.
Earlier this week, Kevin Downey Jr. wrote about what he calls “affluent white liberal women,” or AWFLs, pegging them as the biggest internal threat to America… well-off women with pronouns in their bios and too much time on their hands. He described them as attention-seeking harpies who push extreme gender ideology, drag their kids to medicalized gender clinics, and parade them at sexualized drag shows labeled as “family-friendly.” These are the same people, he argued, who want to defund the police, defend criminals no matter how violent or foreign, and censor anyone who steps out of line with their diversity-and-inclusion gospel.
In fact, recent polling from Cygnal supports his thesis in a significant way. According to the poll, around 24% of Americans overall think criminal action, including violence, is acceptable to stop federal immigration enforcement.
[…]But drill down to white liberal women ages 18 to 44, and that number explodes to 61%.
The poll helps to illustrate the general trend behind the specific videos of these women getting violent with the police. Far from being one or two cases, this is actually what 61% of white leftist women ages 18 to 44 agree with. Regular readers will know about the slide of young women into the radical, extremist left, because I’ve blogged about the surveys showing a worldwide trend of young women becoming more leftist. But it’s useful to have the up to date numbers.
It’s also significant that most of these women are extremely unhappy:
Turns out they’re miserable. The 2024 American Family Survey found that 37% of conservative women and 28% of moderate women between 18 and 40 reported being “completely satisfied” with their lives. For liberal women in the same age group, that figure collapses to just 12%. Liberal women are almost three times more likely than conservative women to experience loneliness multiple times a week, 29% compared to 11%.
This article from The Federalist by Joshua Slocum entitled “Why Leftist White Women Are Leading Domestic Terrorism In Minnesota” is exactly right in identifying the root cause:
At least 60 years of mainstreamed feminism has put American culture under the stiletto heel of entitled and exploitative women.
[…]How did so many leftist American women decide that young foreign men who jump the border are innocent victims in need of their maternal protection, instead of the American girls and young women entitled to be shielded from these men?
The answer appears to be Cluster B personality disorders. These are deep, ingrained characteristics. Those with such disorders are fundamentally narcissistic, emotionally unstable, and often disconnected from reality.
[…]This is what we’re seeing in these female leftist “protestors.” Cluster B personalities are all about dysregulated emotions (usually rage or suicidal despair) and twisting reality into its opposite.
And Joshua Slocum actually proposes a solution to this problem. What’s the solution? We hold women accountable for their bad choices, instead of blaming the results of their bad choices on men.
He writes:
First, we must enact swift and proportionate consequences. For too long, leftist agitators, especially women, have been given the hands-off treatment. Too many of these videos show cops wasting time issuing repeated orders to stop the car and get out while the harpies behind the wheel only escalate. Give the order clearly once. If she disobeys, cuff her and put her in the paddy wagon.
[…]Second, we have to reject the “women are wonderful” effect. This is a phenomenon that describes how both men and women have an in-built pro-female bias. We can look at a man and a woman both performing the same bad action, but we’ll excuse the woman while condemning the man.
Ill-tempered women in America have gotten away with disorderly and criminal behavior at high rates because of this bias. They know it, and they use it deliberately. This woman was tailing ICE and interfering with their operation, pulled the “I’m just a mom!” card when she was caught and forced to stop. Don’t fall for it.
By the way, there’s a great recent article from The Federalist about Christians firing a man and paying a woman just over $1 million dollarsfor engaging in the exact same action.
But let us continue with Joshua Slocum:
Finally, men have to go back to telling women “no.” This is the piece of advice most people have the hardest time with. Women hate hearing it. Many men do, too. We’ve been so hypnotized for so long by feminism that simply telling women “no,” and suggesting that a man ever exercise authority over a woman, is read by otherwise reasonable people as “misogyny.”
Nonsense. If women are full adults with as much agency as men, then they must be treated that way. Men have become knock-kneed with fear, even contemplating telling women “no.” It’s not an unreasonable worry. In my counseling practice, male clients have told me that simply holding female underlings to the same standards as males has resulted in complaints to HR that the men are “aggressive” with women.
Men, I’m afraid we’re going to have to do it anyway. They’re going to call us misogynists. They’re going to tell us we have “an aggressive tone” with women. This is merely the same toddler distraction behavior that ends up exploding in these absurd and dangerous street performances.
Men are not going to get through this without the accusations, and we have to accept that as the price we pay for helping put civil society back in order. The women will be fine. Sooner or later, the stroppy toddler cries it out and starts behaving sanely again.
If you want a long-form explanation for what the underlying cause of this mental illness is, you should check out this article from Aporia Magazine, entitled “Sterile Polygamy”. In one line, white leftist women are going crazy because they have adopted a dating strategy that leaves them with no commitment, no children, and no long-term love relationships.
Here’s the important part:
At the 2018 peak, 28% of men under 30 reported no sex in the past year, compared to 18% of women.
On dating apps, women’s average match rate is 31%; men’s is 2.6% — a 12-fold difference. The most desirable men receive overwhelming attention while the majority receive almost nothing.
[…]The data is stark. Analysis of dating app behavior shows that women like about 14% of male profiles, whereas men like 46% of female profiles. The result is that a small percentage of men receive the vast majority of female attention. The top 10% of men get over half of all likes. The bottom 50% of men get about 5%.
[…]High-status men benefit from polygyny. Women may even prefer to share a high-status man over exclusive access to a low-status one.
[…]If you designed a system to maximize sexual access for high-status men while maintaining the pretense of monogamy, you couldn’t do better than the one we’ve built by accident.
[…]We’ve invented something different: effective polygamy without children. High-status men cycle through partners, but nobody reproduces. Why? Because reproduction requires the lock-in that marriage provides. Serial dating offers [high-status] men all the benefits of access with none of the costs of commitment. And women, waiting for commitment from [high-status] men who have no incentive to provide it, delay childbearing until it’s too late.
So, will we get any leadership on this from within the Christian community or the conservative community? I don’t see any reason why we should expect to. Our leaders are still harping about “Andrew Tate” and ignoring all of the real underlying problems caused by feminist laws, policies and indoctrination.
When I listen to Christian and conservative leaders, they seem to think that they can expect good men to date and marry 40-year-old single-mother feminists who have spent their 20s chasing the bad boys and becoming less and less attractive as wives. And these leaders have no interest in reforming injustices no-fault divorce, false accusations, biased domestic violence laws, paternity fraud, single mother welfare, etc. They can’t even name them! So, they’re just going to keep on insisting on a woman’s “right” to protection and provision from any man that she decides to settle for. When she is “ready”.
That’s not working. It will never work. We need a new strategy.
“It should be your care, therefore, and mine, to elevate the minds of our children and exalt their courage. … If we suffer their minds to grovel and creep in infancy, they will grovel all their lives.” —John Adams (1756)
Clintons wipe Epstein subpoena with a cloth or something: On Tuesday, Bill and Hillary Clinton refused a subpoena to testify before the House Oversight Committee regarding its investigation into Jeffrey Epstein. The Clintons released an eight-page letter stating they were “ready to fight … no matter the consequences.” In the letter, they also asserted, “The Subpoenas issued to President and Secretary Clinton are invalid and legally unenforceable. Mindful of these defects, we trust you will engage in good faith to de-escalate this dispute.” Committee Chair James Comer responded to the Clintons’ no-show by stating, “We will move next week in the House Oversight Committee … to hold Bill Clinton in contempt of Congress.” Clinton is one of the highest-profile individuals connected to Epstein, and questions abound as to whether he was involved in Epstein’s sex-trafficking crimes.
Iran protests continue: Protests against the totalitarian regime that has ruled Iran since the days of Jimmy Carter continue, with the U.S.-based Human Rights Activists News Agency reporting over 2,000 deaths so far. That figure is already the highest death count for protests inside Iran for any event since the Islamic Revolution in 1979. Other sources, including some inside Iran, suggest the actual death count is much higher, with a figure of 12,000 dead circulating widely, and some suggesting it may be closer to 20,000. The Iranians’ ability to communicate with the outside world has been deliberately crippled by the ayatollahs, although some communications were reestablished yesterday, and Elon Musk’s Starlink has provided some internet access. President Donald Trump yesterday told Iranian patriots to continue protesting and promised, “HELP IS ON ITS WAY.” On Monday, Trump imposed a 25% tariff on any country continuing to trade with Iran.
Temporary protection status for Somalia nullified: Thousands of Somalis living in the U.S. were allowed to remain under the temporary protection status (TPS) for Somalia, but no longer. The Trump administration has revoked Somalia’s TPS, and those Somalis here under its auspices have until March 17 to leave the country. DHS Secretary Kristi Noem explained that “allowing Somali nationals to remain temporarily in the United States is contrary to our national interests.” Noem also argued that conditions in Somalia have improved enough to justify ending TPS. Perhaps the only word on the issue that matters came at the beginning of Noem’s statement: “Temporary means temporary.”
House rejects low-flow showerheads: The House of Representatives continues to codify President Trump’s executive orders into law. Its newest target? Low-flow showerheads. A 1992 energy law restricted showerheads to no more than 2.5 gallons per minute, inspiring the TV show “Seinfeld” to bemoan the lack of pressure. President Barack Obama reinterpreted that law to mean that no showerhead system can allow more than 2.5 gallons per minute, regardless of the number of total showerheads. Trump repealed those standards in his first term, only for President Joe Biden to reinstate them. Rep. Russell Fry of South Carolina aims to put the issue beyond the reach of executive power. On Tuesday, lawmakers passed Fry’s bill, reaffirming that each shower nozzle is its own showerhead and is entitled to 2.5 gpm of water flow. Pushing back the regulatory state is tedious work, but this Congress is slowly and steadily making progress.
Possible “Havana Syndrome” device acquired by U.S.: In late 2024, the U.S. government acquired a device that may be the culprit behind the debilitating condition known as “Havana Syndrome” that has affected more than 1,500 American officials since it was first reported in 2016. The backpack-sized portable device was reportedly clandestinely purchased by DHS at an undisclosed price in the eight-figures. Unsurprisingly, it is said to contain components of Russian origin. The Pentagon has been studying and testing the device over the past year. Apparently, it emits pulsed, radio-frequency energy. The revelation of this device runs counter to a 2023 U.S. intel report that concluded it was “very unlikely” a foreign entity was responsible for the ill-health conditions these officials were suffering, which were officially labeled “Anomalous Health Incidents.”
Both parties are losing ground with voters: Some 45% of voters now identify as independent. However, only 10% of voters represent what might be called the “true independent,” expressing no partisan preference, with the remainder of that 45% leaning toward one party or the other. Among the “leaners,” Democrats have a five-point edge over Republicans. Despite that, more Americans describe themselves as varying degrees of conservative (35%) than liberal (28%) or moderate (33%). The rise in independents seems to be a function of youth, with Millennial and Gen Z voters having majority independent identification.
Ed Dept. green-lights new rule stopping funding of low-paying degrees: The Department of Education is finalizing a new rule that will require schools to include the average earnings of graduates of the degree programs they offer. Furthermore, if graduates of those degrees don’t earn more, on average, than a high school graduate, those degrees will be prohibited from receiving federal funds. The Trump administration is looking to “break the cycle of student debt and poor return on investment” plaguing too many graduates, explained Under Secretary of Education Nicholas Kent. “After more than 15 years of regulatory uncertainty under the previous three Administrations, we’ve developed an accountability framework that institutions can work with, students will benefit from, and taxpayers can rightfully expect to improve outcomes.” According to the U.S. Career Institute estimate, the average high school graduate earned $42,590 in 2023.
Trump flips bird at heckler in Ford plant: While touring a Ford plant in Dearborn, Michigan, yesterday, President Trump responded to a heckler who yelled out “pedophile protector” by pointing and appearing to mouth the words “F**k you” before flipping off the heckler. White House Communications Director Steven Cheung defended Trump, stating, “A lunatic was wildly screaming expletives in a complete fit of rage, and the president gave an appropriate and unambiguous response.” Meanwhile, DNC Chair Ken Martin took the interaction as an opportunity to frame Trump’s response as “Protecting pedophiles and saying f**k you to American workers.”
Headlines
Trump to cut federal payments to sanctuary cities starting February 1 (Fox News)
Trump admin designates Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Jordan, and Lebanon as foreign terror groups (NY Post)
Politico says Trump “quietly restored” payments to Planned Parenthood last month (Not the Bee)
America had negative migration for the first time in over 50 years (Not the Bee)
Humor: Democrats fear Iranian love of freedom could spread to America (Babylon Bee)
The Executive News Summary is compiled daily by Jordan Candler, Thomas Gallatin, Sterling Henry, and Sophie Starkova. For the archive, click here.
Can Idaho and West Virginia, and, by extension, 27 other states, define sports based on sex? That’s essentially the question the Supreme Court considered during yesterday’s oral arguments, and it certainly seemed likely that the Court would side with reason, science, and morality, as well as protect women’s sports from males pretending to be females.
Amy Howe at SCOTUSblog lays out the background of the two cases (Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J.), though I will make a couple of key edits for clarity and truth:
Idaho adopted its law in 2020; West Virginia followed one year later. Lindsay Hecox, now 24 years old, went to federal court in Idaho to challenge that state’s law. Hecox is a transgender woman man who wanted to be able to try out for the women’s track and cross-country teams at Boise State University; she he did not make those teams but later played club sports.
The West Virginia case was filed by Heather Jackson, the mother of B.P.J., a now-15-year-old transgender high school student who has publicly identified as a girl since the third grade. B.P.J. has taken puberty blockers to prevent the onset of male puberty, as well as hormone therapy with estrogen. B.P.J. has competed on the track and cross-country teams at school.
The Washington Post has a gushing profile on Becky Pepper-Jackson (B.J.P.), the West Virginia student, in which he and his supporters argue that “treatment” began early enough to negate any inherent biological advantage. The problem is that B.P.J. keeps winning girls’ events, and it’s sometimes not even close.
Indeed, the Post’s editorial board came out in favor of the state laws, rhetorically asking and answering, “Is there evidence that males are better athletes than females? Yes, scads.”
Previously, the Fourth Circuit Court blocked West Virginia’s law because it allegedly violates the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause and Title IX of the Civil Rights Act by discriminating on the basis of sex. The Ninth Circuit Court blocked the Idaho law only on 14th Amendment grounds. In a bit of a twist, Hecox actually requested that the Supreme Court drop the case because he was no longer competing in athletics — in other words, he knew he was headed for defeat and would rather have no decision than a loss.
Back here in reality, as Justice Samuel Alito noted yesterday, you can’t violate equal protection or Title IX’s language about discriminating “on the basis of sex” if you erase the definition of sex.
Alito and Kathleen Hartnett, the ACLU attorney arguing both cases, had an incredible exchange that utterly eviscerated the trans ideology (forgive the length, but it’s illustrative):
Alito: Do you agree that a school may have separate teams for a category of students classified as boys and the category of students classified as girls?
Hartnett: Yes, Your Honor. …
Alito: If it does that, then is it not necessary for there to be, for equal protection purposes, if that is challenged under the equal protection clause, an understanding of what it means to be a boy or a girl or a man or a woman?
Hartnett: Yes, Your Honor.
Alito: And what is that definition for equal protection purposes? … What does it mean to be a boy or a girl or a man or a woman?
Hartnett: … We do not have a definition for the court…
Alito: Well, how can you, how can a court determine whether there’s discrimination on the basis of sex without knowing what sex means for equal protection purposes? …
Suppose this school has a boys’, let’s say, track team, and a girls’ track team. … A student who has the genes and the reproductive system of a male, and had those at birth and has never taken puberty blockers, never taken female hormones, never had any gender-altering or affirming surgery, says, “Nevertheless, I am a woman. That’s who I am.” Can the school say, “No, you cannot participate on the girls’ team?”
Hartnett: [After asking clarification] “Yes, they can.”
Alito: Is that person not a woman in your understanding? The person says, “I sincerely believe I am a woman…” Is that person not a woman?
Hartnett: I would respect their self-identity in addressing the person, but in terms of the statute, I think the question is, “Does that person have a sex-based biological advantage that’s going to make it unfair for that person to be a part of the women’s team?”
Alito: … What you seem to be saying is yes, it is permissible for the school to discriminate on the basis of transgender status. Because if this person is a “trans woman,” a “trans girl,” and is barred from the girls’ team, then that person is being subjected to differential treatment based on transgender status, right?
Eventually, the challengers argued that there’s a “subset” of “birth-sex males” who shouldn’t be excluded from girls’ sports because they don’t possess all the physical advantages of normal males. The conservative justices appeared unconvinced by this hair-splitting definition of convenience.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who unfortunately used terms like “trans girl” and “cisgender,” nevertheless noted that regular testing to prove or disprove any inherent advantages would be far more invasive than simple male/female categories.
Meanwhile, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who protested that she’s “not a biologist” when asked to define a woman during her confirmation hearings, is still every bit as deliberately ignorant now as she was then. See if you can decipher this mumbo jumbo:
You have the overarching classification, you know, everybody has to be, um, uh, uh, play on the team that is the same as their sex at birth. Um, but then you have a gender identity definition that is operating within that. Meaning, a distinction, meaning that, um, for, uh, cisginger [sic] girls they can play consistent with their gender identity, w- for transgender girls, they can’t.
“Cisginger.” LOL.
Her lowest moment, however, came when she said, “I guess I’m still struggling to understand why the state would have to have perfectly tailored laws. I— I— I would think the state would just have to make exceptions where people can demonstrate that the justification that makes the state’s conduct constitutional does — doesn’t apply to them.”
Justice Department attorney Hashim Moopan could hardly believe his ears: “So, making exceptions is tailoring your law. That’s literally what it means to tailor a law.”
Game, set, match. Well, at least I hope so when the Court renders its opinion in June.
Sophie Starkova: Saving the American Family — Incentivize marriage and family through laws and policies, and ferret out rules or laws that harm or disincentivize marriage and the American family.
Emmy Griffin: Cuba Is Literally Running on Fumes — This small island nation that relied on Venezuelan oil is experiencing economic free fall thanks in part to Operation Absolute Resolve.
Thomas Gallatin: Exploiting American Generosity — After a shooting in Maine, people raised money for the victims. A group of Somalis ended up stealing some of it.
Progressive Utopias: Why Communes Collapse — Socialists like New York City’s new mayor push the “warmth of collectivism.” But every time they build their model of a socialist utopia — a commune — they fail.
“Sadly, the Great Influencer, Scott Adams, has passed away. … He will be truly missed. God bless you Scott!” —President Donald Trump
Yellow Journalism
“Scott Adams, Disgraced Dilbert Creator, Dies at 68.” —People Magazine headline
Dumb & Dumber
“For cisginger [sic] girls, they can play consistent with their gender identity. For transgender girls, they can’t.” —Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson
“We do not have a definition [of sex] for the Court.” —ACLU attorney Kathleen Hartnett to Justice Samuel Alito
Braying Jennies
“Officials [are] saying [Renee Good] was dangerous, not just some innocent mother of three. Just like they say Kilmar Abrego Garcia isn’t just a Maryland father.” —MS Now’s Katy Tur
“The violent criminals seem to be in the agency.” —”The View” co-host Whoopi Goldberg regarding ICE
For the Record
“Law-enforcement officers make split-second decisions in chaos, guided by training and law, when hesitation can be fatal. We perceive threats in real time — tinted windows, sudden movements, a suspect’s history — not in slow-motion replays. Yet we’re judged in hindsight, often through political lenses.” —Wisconsin LEO Mark Wagner
“Once a federal law is passed and upheld by the Supreme Court, you must obey the law. If you don’t obey the law, then we’re back to the Civil War, which was fought over the idea that states could ignore the federal government. … Left-wing Democrat governors and mayors are defying federal law.” —Gary Bauer
“The political movement that gained momentum from George Floyd’s death in 2020 didn’t make America safer for people who looked like Floyd. It only weakened police and subjected Americans of all colors to more violence.” —Daniel McCarthy
Make Responsibility Great Again
“I want every liberal … to engage in a thought scenario. … If your sister is telling you that instead of caring for her children or her mental health that she prefers to stalk law enforcement, would you say, ‘You go girl?’ Of course not. You would say, ‘You need an intervention.’” —Greg Gutfeld
And Last…
“As a result of Bill Clinton not showing up for his lawful subpoena … we will move next week in the House Oversight Committee markup to hold former President Clinton in contempt of Congress.” —Rep. James Comer (R-KY)
ON THIS DAY in 1784, after nine long years since the first shots were fired at Lexington and Concord, the Continental Congress ratified the Treaty of Paris, ending the Revolutionary War.
A total of nineteen blue states are suing the Trump administration in a bid to protect the right to perform child sex changes.
Last week, Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said he would cut off Medicare and Medicaid funding to any provider that offers so-called gender-affirming treatment to minors.
“Under my leadership, and answering President Trump’s call to action, the federal government will do everything in its power to stop unsafe, irreversible practices that put our children at risk,” Kennedy said at the time.
The Oregon-led lawsuit claims that the decision “exceeds the Secretary’s authority and violates the Administrative Procedure Act and the Medicare and Medicaid statutes.”
Oregon Attorney General Dayfield argued that child sex changes are an essential form of healthcare.
Attorney General Dan Rayfield today led a coalition of 18 other states and the District of Columbia in suing to ensure the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) cannot threaten providers with a so-called declaration that baselessly and unlawfully attempts to limit a family’s ability to work with their providers to make the healthcare decisions without interference from the federal government.
The declaration falsely claims that certain forms of gender-affirming care are “unsafe and ineffective” and threatens to punish any doctors, hospitals, and clinics that continue to provide it with exclusion from the federal Medicare and Medicaid programs.
“By targeting Oregon providers, HHS is putting care at risk and forcing families to choose between their personal health care choices and their doctor’s ability to practice,” said Attorney General Rayfield.
“Healthcare decisions belong with families and their healthcare providers, not the government.”
Among the states signed up to the lawsuit are California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Wisconsin, Washington, and D.C.
During a press conference last week, Kennedy ripped into the so-called medical experts who continue to advocate for young people making decisions that are dangerous and irreversible:
Doctors across the country now provide needless and irreversible sex rejecting procedures that violate their sacred Hippocratic Oath, endangering the very lives they’re sworn to safeguard.”
The American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, peddled the lie that chemical and surgical sex rejecting procedures could be good for children who suffer from gender dysphoria.”
They betrayed the estimated 300,000 American youth ages 13 to 17, conditioned to believe that sex can be changed.
They betrayed their Hippocratic Oath to do no harm. So-called gender affirming care has done psychological and physical damage to vulnerable young people.”
This is not medicine, it is malpractice.
Watch the clip below:
This is a watershed moment.
The medical establishment just lost its grip — and there’s no pretending anymore.
Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. detonated the entire “gender-affirming care” narrative today, announcing that HHS will now restrict and reject the very framework that… pic.twitter.com/GO0mexELnh
After four years of transgender activism from Joe Biden’s White House, President Donald Trump and his administration are moving to further shield children from harmful gender transition procedures. On Thursday, Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced new rules that would bar hospitals that carry out gender transition surgeries on minors from receiving Medicaid and Medicare funding.
In a press release, HHS described gender transition procedures as “sex-rejecting procedures … that expose young people to irreversible harm.” The agency clarified, “These procedures include pharmaceutical or surgical interventions of specified types that attempt to align a child’s physical appearance or body with an asserted identity different from their sex.” The new rules would ensure that hospitals cannot commit gender transition procedures against children as a prerequisite to participating in Medicaid or Medicare programs.
“Nearly all U.S. hospitals participate in Medicare and Medicaid and this action is designed to ensure that the U.S. government will not be in business with organizations that intentionally or unintentionally inflict permanent harm on children,” the HHS press release declared. “Sex-rejecting procedures on children — which include puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgical operations — expose them to irreversible damage, including infertility, impaired sexual function, diminished bone density, altered brain development, and other irreversible physiological effects.”
“Under my leadership, and answering President Trump’s call to action, the federal government will do everything in its power to stop unsafe, irreversible practices that put our children at risk,” Kennedy said in a statement. “This Administration will protect America’s most vulnerable. Our children deserve better — and we are delivering on that promise.” HHS will also bar Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) funds from covering gender transition procedures for minors.
In a press conference announcing the proposed new rule, Kennedy said, “Doctors assume a solemn obligation to protect children. Yet doctors across the country now provide needless and irreversible sex rejecting procedures that violate their sacred Hippocratic Oath by endangering the very lives that they are sworn to safeguard.” He charged that professional organizations like the American Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics promoted flawed, unsound, and ideologically-motivated research and “peddled the lie that chemical and surgical sex-rejecting procedures could be good for children who suffer from gender dysphoria.”
Kennedy also contended that the organizations “betrayed the estimated 300,000 American youth, ages 13 to 17, conditioned to believe that sex can be changed. They betrayed their Hippocratic Oath to do no harm. So-called gender affirming care has inflicted lasting physical and psychological damage on vulnerable young people.”
“This is not medicine. It is malpractice. We’re done with junk science driven by ideological pursuits, not the well-being of children,” Kennedy declared. He touted an HHS report released one month ago that found that gender transition procedures for children were based on “very low-quality evidence” and caused “extensive” harm to children. “So today, we are taking six decisive actions guided by gold-standard science and the week-one executive order from President Trump to protect children from chemical and surgical mutilation,” he announced.
Kennedy also signed a formal declaration clarifying that gender transition procedures for minors “do not meet professionally recognized standards of health care,” which could potentially open the door to legal or professional measures against hospitals carrying out gender transition procedures on children. The Health secretary confirmed, “Sex-rejecting procedures are neither safe nor effective treatment for children with gender dysphoria.”
HHS Deputy Secretary Jim O’Neill also spoke at the press conference, simply stating, “Men are men. Men can never become women. Women are women. Women can never become men. Children are innocent and they need our protection.” His remarks were met with applause from those in attendance.
In addition to the new rules surrounding Medicaid and Medicare funding, HHS is also warning the manufacturers of “breast binders” marketed to children that they are committing “significant regulatory violations and how they should take prompt corrective action,” terminating grants that funds “transgender” research involving minors, and undoing a Biden-era policy which would have officially classified gender dysphoria as a medical disability, therefore barring hospitals and health care practitioners from committing gender transition procedures under nondiscrimination statutes.
“The Biden administration abused a law that was never intended to require health care providers or health programs to support transgender surgeries for minors,” O’Neill said. “Our rule would restore regulatory clarity and ensure that organizations receiving federal funds can set evidence-based policies without fear of violating federal civil rights requirements.”
In comments to The Washington Stand, Joy Stockbauer, policy analyst at Family Research Council’s Center for Human Dignity, said, “I applaud this move to protect the vulnerable from these twisted gender transition procedures. It’s difficult enough to be a young person in the digital age without being targeted by life-altering procedures that prey on one’s greatest insecurities and confusions.” She added, “Let’s let kids be kids again, free from the agendas and pressures of sick adults — and let’s encourage young people to see themselves as they really are, as image bearers of the God of the universe.”
Family Research Council is a nonprofit research and educational organization founded in 1983, dedicated to articulating and advancing a family-centered philosophy of public life.
Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced groundbreaking measures that will effectively halt the dangerous practice of so-called “gender-affirming care” for minors across the United States.
Kennedy laid out a series of executive actions and proposed rules designed to end the chemical and surgical mutilation of vulnerable young people confused about their gender identity.
RFK Jr. announced at the HHS press conference:
“Doctors assume a solemn obligation to protect children. Yet doctors across the country now provide needless and irreversible sex-rejecting procedures that violate their sacred Hippocratic oaths by endangering the very lives they are sworn to safeguard.
The American Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics peddled the lie that chemical and surgical sex-rejecting procedures could be good for children who suffer from gender dysphoria.
They betrayed the estimated 300,000 American youth, ages 13 to 17, conditioned to believe that sex can be changed. They betrayed their Hippocratic oath to do no harm.
So-called “gender-affirming care” has inflicted lasting physical and psychological damage on vulnerable young people. This is not medicine; it is malpractice. We’re done with junk science driven by ideological pursuits, not the well-being of children.
A peer-reviewed report published by the HHS Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health last month confirms that sex-rejecting procedures impose medical dangers and lasting harm on children who receive these interventions.
So today, we are taking six decisive actions, guided by gold-standard science and the week-one executive order from President Trump, to protect children from chemical and surgical mutilation.
This morning, I signed a declaration: Sex-rejecting procedures are neither safe nor effective treatments for children with gender dysphoria.”
WATCH:
🚨 BREAKING: RFK Jr announced he’s signed a directive BANNING transgender surgeries for minors nationwide
“So-called gender-affirming care has inflicted lasting physical and psychological damage on vulnerable young people. This is not medicine—it is MALPRACTICE”
The cornerstone of the announcement includes two powerful proposed rules:
Prohibiting federal Medicaid reimbursement for any gender-affirming procedures—such as puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, or surgeries—provided to individuals under 18.
Barring all Medicare and Medicaid funding to any hospital that offers pediatric gender-affirming care, ensuring that facilities reliant on federal dollars prioritize healing over harm.
These measures build on President Trump’s Day One executive order rejecting federal support for child “transitions” and come on the heels of strong congressional action, including the House passage of Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene’s bill criminalizing such procedures for minors and Rep. Dan Crenshaw’s legislation blocking Medicaid coverage.
There is heaps of money to be made in the trans movement:
When you think about it, basically all the terrible social ills found in the West today have one main driving factor behind them: the love of money and the lust to get rich quick, with a minimal amount of work and effort. No wonder Paul said that the “love of money is the root of all evil” (1 Timothy 6:10). Consider just some of these evil activities:
-Drug dealers getting people hooked on illicit drugs. -The sex industry getting people hooked on porn, prostitution and so on. -The human trafficking cartels getting rich off the enslavement of others. -Big Pharma pushing drugs instead of cures. -Big Tobacco and the nicotine fix.
The list goes on and on. And there is plenty of money to be made in other areas, especially the trans mafia. So many groups are involved here, seeking to convince innocent children and young people that they are somehow in the wrong body, and if they or their parents cough up a small fortune, all their problems will be fixed.
Mat Staver, the Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel in America has just penned an eye-opening piece about what a cash-cow the trans industry is. They are making millions while destroying the lives of kids and others. Here is what he writes:
There’s a lot of money to be made from preventing gender-confused people from achieving true healing. Perhaps that’s why more than 100 cities and states across the United States have caved to the “gender-affirming care” industry by banning Christian change counseling. Christian change counseling has been proven to heal gender dysphoria and confusion in children and adults. But instead of healing, many cities and states are forcing gender dysphoria patients into the financially lucrative, but often deadly, “gender” abyss.
The U.S. Supreme Court is now considering Chiles v. Salazar, to decide if cities and states can ban this counseling. Liberty Counsel set up this case for the High Court, overturning 23 bans in FL, GA, and AL.
“You can make two, three, four times as much money being a prescriber than a therapist,” says Daniel Carlat, M.D., a clinical professor of psychiatry at Tufts University. In his book, Unhinged: The Trouble with Psychiatry, Dr. Carlat exposed how and why the mental health industry has largely abandoned “talk therapy” (like Christian change counseling) and stopped focusing on healing individuals and instead focuses on the far more lucrative tact of simply drugging the patients.
The full scope of the crisis can be seen in so-called “gender-affirming care,” where patients become medical and pharmaceutical customers for life. That’s because even after undergoing outrageously expensive mutilating surgeries, patients must continue taking hormones, and often antidepressants, for the rest of their lives. So-called “gender-affirming care” costs millions over the lifetime of the patient. Big Pharma and the medical industry are more than happy to cash in.
Five-thousand dollars per month in drugs and appointments alone.
-400-800/month for counseling fees: First come the counseling visits, with fees anywhere from 200-400 dollars per visit.
-500/month for antidepressant drugs: Then come the anti-depressant/anxiety drugs which can cost more than 500 per month. Studies show that nearly two-thirds of all “gender care” patients take daily mental health medications for the long term.
-3,000/month for puberty blockers: Prepubescent children are put on puberty blockers until their bodies are “ready” for cross-sex hormones.
-500/month FOR LIFE for cross-sex hormones: After puberty, gender-confused patients are prescribed cross-sex hormones, which they will have to take for the rest of their lives.
Staver continues:
Outrageously expensive designer surgeries. . .
Mutilating plastic surgery can run into hundreds of thousands of dollars per patient, often exceeding 1 million dollars over a lifetime. So-called “Female to Male” surgery: 350,000 dollars, NOT INCLUDING the cost of operating room fees, anesthesiology, hospital stays, and surgical medications, the total of which often cost nearly as much as the surgery itself.
-Phalloplasty: 150,000.
-Facial masculinization surgery: up to 100,000.
-Hysterectomy: 27,000.
-Penile implant: 20,000.
-Double mastectomy: 17,000.
-Body masculinization: 14,000.
-Laser hair removal from surgical sites: 9,000.
-Testicular prosthesis implants: 4,000.
So-called “Male to Female” surgery costs: 500,000 dollars, NOT INCLUDING the cost of operating room fees, anesthesiology, hospital stays, and surgical medications, the total of which often cost nearly as much as the surgery itself.
-Vaginoplasty: up to 300,000.
-Facial feminization surgery: up to 100,000.
-Vulvoplasty: 20,000.
-Labiaplasty: 15,000.
-Breast implants: 10,000-20,000.
-Body feminization surgery: 19,500.
-Laser hair removal surgery: 9,000.
-Orchiectomy: 8,000.
-Tracheal shave (reduces size of Adam’s apple): 5,000.
With money like that on the line, no wonder so many are fighting to BAN Christian counseling! HEALING people of gender dysphoria ends an entire industry’s income stream. Perhaps that is why so many in that God-forsaken industry are fighting for MORE Christian counseling bans — because Christian counseling HEALS gender dysphoria without drugs or surgeries. https://lc.org/newsroom/details/251208-pharmas-trans-cash-generator
Sacrificial Lambs: A Liberal Reporter Exposes How the Progressive Left Harms Children in the Name of Gender Ideology by Bartholomew, Anita (Author)
Another voice that has been sounding the alarm on this is Anita Bartholomew. I have quoted before from her very important book, Sacrificial Lambs: A Liberal Reporter Exposes How the Progressive Left Harms Children in the Name of Gender Ideology (Pitchstone Publishing, 2025). She discusses all the groups conspiring together to promote this:
A majority of the rainbows-and-unicorns transgenderism promotion has been done for free by virtually every major media organization, a good chunk of the entertainments industry, almost all medical associations, almost every liberal college and university, every liberal and progressive K-12 public school system, and most so-called progressive political figures. (pp. 213-214)
She also looks at all the money behind the trans revolution, and then says this:
I’ve spent countless hours pondering the question: how did so many different people and organizations buy into and help sustain the trans craze, despite the abject absurdity of it all, despite its destructiveness, despite its contradicting (with zero evidence) almost everything about sex that we know to be true? I’ve examined all the theories and looked into all the groups that have been singled out by other journalists and authors, and I’ve concluded that it’s not any single group or individual or idea or incentive.
It’s all of them.
Gender ideology is bolstered and held together by a web of unlikely allies: the wealthy transvestic fetishists and autogynephiles; the indoctrinated educators; the established nonprofits seeking new sources of revenue; the moms and dads who’ve “affirmed” their children and desperately need for it to have been the right call; the medical and mental health professionals profiting from trans-related services; the kids who’ve been purposely confused by their elders; the gays and lesbians who see the T as part of their tribe; the college-educated social justice warriors; all the other “sexual minorities,” including the most perverted, demanding understanding and acceptance; the legacy media that report trans insanity as if it were Truth itself; and the army of virtue signalers whose interest is almost entirely based on a narcissistic desire for high fives and attaboys.
Only such a grotesquely idiosyncratic coalition could keep the madness going for as long as it has, cross thousands of miles and more than a dozen countries. (pp. 214-215)
Activist groups with activist agendas, coupled with the never-ending desire to make heaps of money, are what really lie behind the trans tsunami. We must do all we can to resist it, before we lose our culture and destroy our women and children.
Postscript: The Australian connection
A few days ago a lengthy and quite important article appeared in the Australian newspaper on the trans behemoth. Titled, “How the ABC’s pursuit of platinum status with ACON put its integrity on the line,” the piece began this way:
This year the ABC celebrated a sweet victory. After years of dogged persistence, the national broadcaster achieved platinum status for its commitment to trans rights. The media giant had patiently jumped through every hoop set for it by the organisation once known as the NSW Aids Council, now reborn as LGBTQ+advocacy group ACON.
Hundreds of major public institutions and corporations have signed up to the lobby group’s radical trans agenda through its workplace benchmarking scheme. Only one organisation could offer ACON the potential to reach millions of Australians every day, an audience relying on it for their news and information, trusting it would uphold its sworn pledge to be independent and impartial. And far from being a reluctant bride, the ABC was paying ACON for the privilege.
For those concerned about what the media giant puts to air – and what it doesn’t – the real winner at this watershed moment was clear. It wasn’t the organisation receiving the trophy, it was the organisation handing it out. Australia’s most powerful trans lobby group had well and truly captured the national broadcaster.
If you are wondering why the trans tidal wave seems so relentless and so overwhelming, this is a good part of your answer.
The trans mafia has declared war on an anyone and everyone who dares to challenge their pathologies and their radical social engineering. And sadly they have been backed by most Western governments, most of the media, most judiciaries, most elites, and most schools.
As such, anyone saying ‘no’ to the trans agenda risks being punished in all sorts of ways, whether loss of job, fines, being kicked out of university, and even being arrested and jailed. This is the daily lot for normal people who are sick and tired of this sexual sabotage of our society, and especially our women and children.
Some years ago I tried to keep tabs on the many cases of this punishment, but I had to quickly abandon the project. Every single day we hear of more such episodes, and it gets worse each passing hour. But with so many of our own Australian heroes being punished, I need to share five more such stories. They are all quite recent, happening here and overseas.
Kirralee Smith, Australia
The head of Binary and champion campaigner for sexual sanity has just posted this on the social media about her ongoing legal battles:
My penalty for being guilty of “unlawful vilification” has been handed down. In summary $95,000 in fines which will double if I don’t pay in 28 days. The orders also state I need to issue a public apology. I will be appealing the decision. Your support, your voice and your action is invaluable to me. Thank you!
It is disappointing that the word ‘woman’ has been redefined to include males and that the words ‘violence’ & ‘vilification’ have been applied to speaking the truth about information in the public domain. Australians should be very concerned about their freedoms.
Women have effectively been erased from law and attempts to advocate regarding public policy are shut down for the sake of the feelings of a few. Males should never be permitted to participate in female sport. As a registered third-party political campaigner and a woman, I should have the right to advocate for this without being penalized.
This decision, along with the High Court Appeal for the apprehension of violence order being denied, sets a precedent that all journalists, politicians and political advocates must take note of. The law might state men can be women, but it defies the laws of nature and cannot be sustained. Nothing will steal my joy in knowing that I am a woman and no male ever will be. I am proud to stand for truth and reality.
Australian worker
He was fired after calling non-binary colleague ‘he’ instead of ‘they’:
A Perth man has reportedly been fired from his workplace after misgendering a non-binary colleague. The 63-year-old man called a non-binary colleague ‘he’ instead of ‘they’ in a room of people during a leadership course in February. Another staff member corrected him as the man apologised to the worker, who previously made clear they wanted to be referred to as ‘they’.
The worker had their pronoun name badge on to ensure fellow colleagues knew of this preference. The 63-year-old was later informed by his manager a formal complaint had been lodged, and a written apology was required. The man refused to make a written apology and claimed nobody could be compelled to call a colleague ‘they’.
This woman was also fired for the “crime” of misgendering:
A woman is taking action against her former employer over the claim that she was fired for misgendering a fellow employee. Jocelyn Boden, a former store manager for a Bath & Body Works location in Utah, was reportedly fired for “refusing to adhere to the company’s pronoun policy because of her religious beliefs,” according to conservative legal firm First Liberty Institute.
Attorneys for Boden filed a charge of discrimination with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), with Stephanie Taub, senior counsel for First Liberty, pledging to push back against what she sees as an illegal move by the company.
“She was a store manager for over three years,” Taub told CBN News of Boden. “And when a transgender employee started working at her store … Jocelyn treated her well, treated her like everyone else, was willing to use names or nicknames. But the only problem is: she could not use pronouns in a way that was inconsistent with her religious and moral beliefs.” She continued, “And, because of that, there was an HR complaint that was filed and she was immediately investigated and fired.” https://cbn.com/news/us/fired-misgendering-woman-fights-back-after-termination
Isabella Cêpa, Brazil
This feminist and human rights activist was threatened with a 25-year prison stay in Brazil for refusing to call a male politician ‘female’:
In a precedent-setting move, a European country has officially granted full refugee protections to a Brazilian women’s rights activist who was facing 25 years in prison in her home country for misgendering a transgender politician. Isabella Cêpa is the first person to be recognized as a victim of state persecution for her outspoken opposition to gender identity ideology.
As previously reported by Reduxx, Cêpa first came under criminal investigation after she made a social media post about Erika Hilton – a male politician who “identifies” as a woman. Hilton was elected to São Paulo’s municipal government in November of 2020, winning his seat by a landslide that gave him the title of the most voted-for ‘woman’ in Brazil.
At the time of his victory, Hilton was celebrated in international media as being a “symbolic triumph” for transgender people. Hilton was amongst the top 10 most-voted for candidates in all of Brazil, and was touted as the “only woman” to make the list.
It was the widespread announcement of his victory that first put him on Cêpa’s radar. “At the time I didn’t even know who this person was. I just saw a headline on an Instagram page celebrating that ‘the most voted woman in São Paulo is a transwoman,’” Cêpa told Reduxx during a 2022 interview, recounting how her ordeal began. “Then, I shared a video with my followers saying I was disappointed to hear that the most voted-for woman in São Paulo – later found out that it was in the entire country – was a man.” https://womenspeaktas.au/2025/08/06/exclusive-brazilian-woman-granted-refugee-status-in-europe-after-facing-25-year-sentence-for-misgendering-trans-politician/
Enoch Burke, Ireland
This Christian teacher is being punished in prison – perhaps permanently – for taking a stand in this area:
A teacher who refused to ‘call a boy a girl’ will remain in prison over Christmas after he was jailed last month for contempt of court, a judge has ordered. Enoch Burke has been detained in Mountjoy Prison since late November for breaches of a court order directing him not to trespass at Wilson’s Hospital School in Co Westmeath, where he worked as a teacher. He has been engaged in a legal dispute with the board of the school stemming from a request in 2022 from the then-principal that a student be addressed by a new name and pronoun. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15349945/Irish-teacher-boy-girl-trans-row-jail-Christmas.html
Sacrificial Lambs: A Liberal Reporter Exposes How the Progressive Left Harms Children in the Name of Gender Ideology by Bartholomew, Anita (Author)
I could keep writing up such stories – seemingly from here to eternity. There is no let up to this madness. And as I said above, we are against a whole array of powerful forces who are intent on pushing this madness, and making sure any naysayers WILL be dealt with.
I have previously mentioned a vitally important new book on the trans madness by Anita Bartholomew. This leftist journalist just released Sacrificial Lambs: A Liberal Reporter Exposes How the Progressive Left Harms Children in the Name of Gender Ideology (Pitchstone Publishing, 2025). See my earlier piece on her here: https://billmuehlenberg.com/2025/11/07/stop-living-by-trans-lies/
I will finish my piece by offering a few quotes from her closing chapters. She said this:
Gender ideology is bolstered and held together by a web of unlikely allies: the wealthy transvestic fetishists and autogynephiles; the indoctrinated educators; the established nonprofits seeking new sources of revenue; the moms and dads who’ve “affirmed” their children and desperately need for it to have been the right call; the medical and mental health professionals profiting from trans-related services; the kids who’ve been purposely confused by their elders; the gays and lesbians who see the T as part of their tribe; the college-educated social justice warriors; all the other “sexual minorities,” including the most perverted, demanding understanding and acceptance; the legacy media that report trans insanity as if it were Truth itself; and the army of virtue signalers whose interest is almost entirely based on a narcissistic desire for high fives and attaboys.
Only such a grotesquely idiosyncratic coalition could keep the madness going for as long as it has, cross thousands of miles and more than a dozen countries. (p. 215)
And her closing paragraphs:
Aside from the immediate need to protect children and young adults, we also have to consider what kind of society we want to live in going forward. And, again, the risk goes beyond transgenderism to all the ways that queer theorists want to “queer” anything that could get in the way of normalizing all manner of sexual behaviour.
Even some psychology professionals who are skeptical of gender claims have been urging the destigmatization of so-called virtuous paedophiles (those who, presumably, don’t act on their attractions).
This is the next battlefront. Pedophiles (or “minor-attracted persons,” as some call themselves), have been trying to attach themselves to the alphabet soup of LGBTQIAA++ for years. If society doesn’t defend its norms and values as essential to a healthy culture, eventually, they will succeed.
Look what happened when we destigmatized transvestic fetishism/autogynephilia. That, on the surface, seemed relatively victimless, but the fetishists now demand to be treated in every respect as women.
We’re a tolerant society. But with unlimited tolerance, nothing on queer theory’s wish list can be kept in check.
Don’t be cowed by labels or smears. Forge new alliances to counter the ones that’s foisted this madness upon us.
Unqueer the queering. Disrupt the disruption. And let’s get back to reality. (pp. 228-229)
I have never cared for former Harvard University President Larry Summers’ economics or his role as a Treasury official in blocking Brooksley Born from regulating dark derivatives, but I have always thought Summers got a raw deal when Harvard’s female faculty cancelled him as president for expressing a truth. The women couldn’t wait to get a male, even a Jewish one.
Andrews writes that the feminist attack on Summers changed the way she viewed the world. She saw it as the birth of “wokeness, an epiphenomenon of demographic feminization.” Females emote and males reason. A concentration of females leads to emotion regardless of fact prevailing over reason and analysis. This is the symbol of our era. Facts no longer matter. The feminization of society has destroyed the influence of facts.
Andrews reports that law schools became majority female in 2016, with dire consequences for law. Journalism became majority female in 2018, with the consequence that emotional commitments have replaced objective reporting, or what little of it that had survived liberal bias.
“Medical schools became majority female in 2019. Women became a majority of the college-educated workforce nationwide in 2019. Women became a majority of college instructors in 2023. Women are not yet a majority of the managers in America but they might be soon, as they are now 46 percent. So the timing fits. Wokeness arose around the same time that many important institutions tipped demographically from majority male to majority female.
“The substance fits, too. Everything you think of as wokeness involves prioritizing the feminine over the masculine: empathy over rationality, safety over risk, cohesion over competition. Other writers who have proposed their own versions of the Great Feminization thesis, such as Noah Carl or Bo Winegard and Cory Clark, who looked at feminization’s effects on academia, offer survey data showing sex differences in political values.”
Andrews sees a problematic future. “If wokeness really is the result of the Great Feminization, then the eruption of insanity in 2020 was just a small taste of what the future holds. Imagine what will happen as the remaining men age out of these society-shaping professions and the younger, more feminized generations take full control.” We are already living in a world where “in-group consensus can suppress unpopular facts.”
In 2019, I read an article about Larry Summers and Harvard that changed the way I look at the world. The author, writing under the pseudonym “J. Stone,” argued that the day Larry Summers resigned as president of Harvard University marked a turning point in our culture. The entire “woke” era could be extrapolated from that moment, from the details of how Summers was cancelled and, most of all, who did the cancelling: women.
The basic facts of the Summers case were familiar to me. On January 14, 2005, at a conference on “Diversifying the Science and Engineering Workforce,” Larry Summers gave a talk that was supposed to be off the record. In it, he said that female underrepresentation in hard sciences was partly due to “different availability of aptitude at the high end” as well as taste differences between men and women “not attributable to socialization.” Some female professors in attendance were offended and sent his remarks to a reporter, in defiance of the off-the-record rule. The ensuing scandal led to a no-confidence vote by the Harvard faculty and, eventually, Summers’s resignation.
The essay argued that it wasn’t just that women had cancelled the president of Harvard; it was that they’d cancelled him in a very feminine way. They made emotional appeals rather than logical arguments. “When he started talking about innate differences in aptitude between men and women, I just couldn’t breathe because this kind of bias makes me physically ill,” said Nancy Hopkins, a biologist at MIT. Summers made a public statement clarifying his remarks, and then another, and then a third, with the apology more insistent each time. Experts chimed in to declare that everything Summers had said about sex differences was within the scientific mainstream. These rational appeals had no effect on the mob hysteria.
This cancellation was feminine, the essay argued, because all cancellations are feminine. Cancel culture is simply what women do whenever there are enough of them in a given organization or field. That is the Great Feminization thesis, which the same author later elaborated upon at book length: Everything you think of as “wokeness” is simply an epiphenomenon of demographic feminization.
The explanatory power of this simple thesis was incredible. It really did unlock the secrets of the era we are living in. Wokeness is not a new ideology, an outgrowth of Marxism, or a result of post-Obama disillusionment. It is simply feminine patterns of behavior applied to institutions where women were few in number until recently. How did I not see it before?
Possibly because, like most people, I think of feminization as something that happened in the past before I was born. When we think about women in the legal profession, for example, we think of the first woman to attend law school (1869), the first woman to argue a case before the Supreme Court (1880), or the first female Supreme Court Justice (1981).
A much more important tipping point is when law schools became majority female, which occurred in 2016, or when law firm associates became majority female, which occurred in 2023. When Sandra Day O’Connor was appointed to the high court, only 5 percent of judges were female. Today women are 33 percent of the judges in America and 63 percent of the judges appointed by President Joe Biden.
“The New York Times staff became majority female in 2018.”
The same trajectory can be seen in many professions: a pioneering generation of women in the 1960s and ’70s; increasing female representation through the 1980s and ’90s; and gender parity finally arriving, at least in the younger cohorts, in the 2010s or 2020s. In 1974, only 10 percent of New York Times reporters were female. The New York Times staff became majority female in 2018 and today the female share is 55 percent.
Medical schools became majority female in 2019. Women became a majority of the college-educated workforce nationwide in 2019. Women became a majority of college instructors in 2023. Women are not yet a majority of the managers in America but they might be soon, as they are now 46 percent. So the timing fits. Wokeness arose around the same time that many important institutions tipped demographically from majority male to majority female.
The substance fits, too. Everything you think of as wokeness involves prioritizing the feminine over the masculine: empathy over rationality, safety over risk, cohesion over competition. Other writers who have proposed their own versions of the Great Feminization thesis, such as Noah Carl or Bo Winegard and Cory Clark, who looked at feminization’s effects on academia, offer survey data showing sex differences in political values. One survey, for example, found that 71 percent of men said protecting free speech was more important than preserving a cohesive society, and 59 percent of women said the opposite.
The most relevant differences are not about individuals but about groups. In my experience, individuals are unique and you come across outliers who defy stereotypes every day, but groups of men and women display consistent differences. Which makes sense, if you think about it statistically. A random woman might be taller than a random man, but a group of ten random women is very unlikely to have an average height greater than that of a group of ten men. The larger the group of people, the more likely it is to conform to statistical averages.
Female group dynamics favor consensus and cooperation. Men order each other around, but women can only suggest and persuade. Any criticism or negative sentiment, if it absolutely must be expressed, needs to be buried in layers of compliments. The outcome of a discussion is less important than the fact that a discussion was held and everyone participated in it. The most important sex difference in group dynamics is attitude to conflict. In short, men wage conflict openly while women covertly undermine or ostracize their enemies.
Bari Weiss, in her letter of resignation from TheNew York Times, described how colleagues referred to her in internal Slack messages as a racist, a Nazi, and a bigot and—this is the most feminine part—“colleagues perceived to be friendly with me were badgered by coworkers.” Weiss once asked a colleague at the Times opinion desk to get coffee with her. This journalist, a biracial woman who wrote frequently about race, refused to meet. This was a failure to meet the standards of basic professionalism, obviously. It was also very feminine.
Men tend to be better at compartmentalizing than women, and wokeness was in many ways a society-wide failure to compartmentalize. Traditionally, an individual doctor might have opinions on the political issues of the day but he would regard it as his professional duty to keep those opinions out of the examination room. Now that medicine has become more feminized, doctors wear pins and lanyards expressing views on controversial issues from gay rights to Gaza. They even bring the credibility of their profession to bear on political fads, as when doctors said Black Lives Matter protests could continue in violation of Covid lockdowns because racism was a public health emergency.
One book that helped me put the pieces together was Warriors and Worriers: The Survival of the Sexes by psychology professor Joyce Benenson. She theorizes that men developed group dynamics optimized for war, while women developed group dynamics optimized for protecting their offspring. These habits, formed in the mists of prehistory, explain why experimenters in a modern psychology lab, in a study that Benenson cites, observed that a group of men given a task will “jockey for talking time, disagree loudly,” and then “cheerfully relay a solution to the experimenter.” A group of women given the same task will “politely inquire about one another’s personal backgrounds and relationships … accompanied by much eye contact, smiling, and turn-taking,” and pay “little attention to the task that the experimenter presented.”
The point of war is to settle disputes between two tribes, but it works only if peace is restored after the dispute is settled. Men therefore developed methods for reconciling with opponents and learning to live in peace with people they were fighting yesterday. Females, even in primate species, are slower to reconcile than males. That is because women’s conflicts were traditionally within the tribe over scarce resources, to be resolved not by open conflict but by covert competition with rivals, with no clear terminus.
All of these observations matched my observations of wokeness, but soon the happy thrill of discovering a new theory eventually gave way to a sinking feeling. If wokeness really is the result of the Great Feminization, then the eruption of insanity in 2020 was just a small taste of what the future holds. Imagine what will happen as the remaining men age out of these society-shaping professions and the younger, more feminized generations take full control.
The threat posed by wokeness can be large or small depending on the industry. It’s sad that English departments are all feminized now, but most people’s daily lives are unaffected by it. Other fields matter more. You might not be a journalist, but you live in a country where what gets written in The New York Times determines what is publicly accepted as the truth. If the Times becomes a place where in-group consensus can suppress unpopular facts (more so than it already does), that affects every citizen.
“The rule of law will not survive the legal profession becoming majority female.”
The field that frightens me most is the law. All of us depend on a functioning legal system, and, to be blunt, the rule of law will not survive the legal profession becoming majority female. The rule of law is not just about writing rules down. It means following them even when they yield an outcome that tugs at your heartstrings or runs contrary to your gut sense of which party is more sympathetic.
A feminized legal system might resemble the Title IX courts for sexual assault on college campuses established in 2011 under President Obama. These proceedings were governed by written rules and so technically could be said to operate under the rule of law. But they lacked many of the safeguards that our legal system holds sacred, such as the right to confront your accuser, the right to know what crime you are accused of, and the fundamental concept that guilt should depend on objective circumstances knowable by both parties, not in how one party feels about an act in retrospect. These protections were abolished because the people who made these rules sympathized with the accusers, who were mostly women, and not with the accused, who were mostly men.
These two approaches to the law clashed vividly in the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearings. The masculine position was that, if Christine Blasey Ford can’t provide any concrete evidence that she and Kavanaugh were ever in the same room together, her accusations of rape cannot be allowed to ruin his life. The feminine position was that her self-evident emotional response was itself a kind of credibility that the Senate committee must respect.
If the legal profession becomes majority female, I expect to see the ethos of Title IX tribunals and the Kavanaugh hearings spread. Judges will bend the rules for favored groups and enforce them rigorously on disfavored groups, as already occurs to a worrying extent. It was possible to believe back in 1970 that introducing women into the legal profession in large numbers would have only a minor effect. That belief is no longer sustainable. The changes will be massive.
Oddly enough, both sides of the political spectrum agree on what those changes will be. The only disagreement is over whether they will be a good thing or a bad thing. Dahlia Lithwick opens her book Lady Justice: Women, the Law, and the Battle to Save America with a scene from the Supreme Court in 2016 during oral arguments over a Texas abortion law. The three female justices, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan, “ignored the formal time limits, talking exuberantly over their male colleagues.” Lithwick celebrated this as “an explosion of bottled-up judicial girl power” that “afforded America a glimpse of what genuine gender parity or near parity might have meant for future women in powerful American legal institutions.”
Lithwick lauds women for their irreverent attitude to the law’s formalities, which, after all, originated in an era of oppression and white supremacy. “The American legal system was fundamentally a machine built to privilege propertied white men,” Lithwick writes. “But it’s the only thing going, and you work with what you have.” Those who view the law as a patriarchal relic can be expected to treat it instrumentally. If that ethos comes to prevail throughout our legal system, then the trappings will look the same, but a revolution will have occurred.
The Great Feminization is truly unprecedented. Other civilizations have given women the vote, granted them property rights, or let them inherit the thrones of empires. No civilization in human history has ever experimented with letting women control so many vital institutions of our society, from political parties to universities to our largest businesses. Even where women do not hold the top spots, women set the tone in these organizations, such that a male CEO must operate within the limits set by his human resources VP. We assume that these institutions will continue to function under these completely novel circumstances. But what are our grounds for that assumption?
The problem is not that women are less talented than men or even that female modes of interaction are inferior in any objective sense. The problem is that female modes of interaction are not well suited to accomplishing the goals of many major institutions. You can have an academia that is majority female, but it will be (as majority-female departments in today’s universities already are) oriented toward other goals than open debate and the unfettered pursuit of truth. And if your academia doesn’t pursue truth, what good is it? If your journalists aren’t prickly individualists who don’t mind alienating people, what good are they? If a business loses its swashbuckling spirit and becomes a feminized, inward-focused bureaucracy, will it not stagnate?
If the Great Feminization poses a threat to civilization, the question becomes whether there is anything we can do about it. The answer depends on why you think it occurred in the first place. There are many people who think the Great Feminization is a naturally occurring phenomenon. Women were finally given a chance to compete with men, and it turned out they were just better. That is why there are so many women in our newsrooms, running our political parties, and managing our corporations.
Ross Douthat described this line of thinking in an interview this year with Jonathan Keeperman, a.k.a. “L0m3z,” a right-wing publisher who helped popularize the term “the longhouse” as a metaphor for feminization. “Men are complaining that women are oppressing them. Isn’t the longhouse just a long, male whine about a failure to adequately compete?” Douthat asked. “Maybe you should suck it up and actually compete on the ground that we have in 21st-century America?”
That is what feminists think happened, but they are wrong. Feminization is not an organic result of women outcompeting men. It is an artificial result of social engineering, and if we take our thumb off the scale it will collapse within a generation.
The most obvious thumb on the scale is anti-discrimination law. It is illegal to employ too few women at your company. If women are underrepresented, especially in your higher management, that is a lawsuit waiting to happen. As a result, employers give women jobs and promotions they would not otherwise have gotten simply in order to keep their numbers up.
It is rational for them to do this, because the consequences for failing to do so can be dire. Texaco, Goldman Sachs, Novartis, and Coca-Cola are among the companies that have paid nine-figure settlements in response to lawsuits alleging bias against women in hiring and promotions. No manager wants to be the person who cost his company $200 million in a gender discrimination lawsuit.
“Anti-discrimination law requires that every workplace be feminized.”
Anti-discrimination law requires that every workplace be feminized. A landmark case in 1991 found that pinup posters on the walls of a shipyard constituted a hostile environment for women, and that principle has grown to encompass many forms of masculine conduct. Dozens of Silicon Valley companies have been hit with lawsuits alleging “frat boy culture” or “toxic bro culture,” and a law firm specializing in these suits brags of settlements ranging from $450,000 to $8 million.
Women can sue their bosses for running a workplace that feels like a fraternity house, but men can’t sue when their workplace feels like a Montessori kindergarten. Naturally employers err on the side of making the office softer. So if women are thriving more in the modern workplace, is that really because they are outcompeting men? Or is it because the rules have been changed to favor them?
A lot can be inferred from the way that feminization tends to increase over time. Once institutions reach a 50–50 split, they tend to blow past gender parity and become more and more female. Since 2016, law schools have gotten a little bit more female every year; in 2024, they were 56 percent female. Psychology, once a predominantly male field, is now overwhelmingly female, with 75 percent of psychology doctorates going to women. Institutions seem to have a tipping point, after which they become more and more feminized.
That does not look like women outperforming men. It looks like women driving men away by imposing feminine norms on previously male institutions. What man wants to work in a field where his traits are not welcome? What self-respecting male graduate student would pursue a career in academia when his peers will ostracize him for stating his disagreements too bluntly or espousing a controversial opinion?
In September, I gave a speech at the National Conservatism conference along the lines of the essay above. I was apprehensive about putting forward the Great Feminization thesis in such a public forum. It is still controversial, even in conservative circles, to say that there are too many women in a given field or that women in large numbers can transform institutions beyond recognition in ways that make them cease to function well. I made sure to express my argument in the most neutral way possible. To my surprise, the response was overwhelming. Within a few weeks, the video of the speech had gotten over 100,000 views on YouTube and become one of the most viewed speeches in the history of the National Conservatism conference.
It is good that people are receptive to the argument, because our window to do something about the Great Feminization is closing. There are leading indicators and lagging indicators of feminization, and we are currently at the in-between stage when law schools are majority female but the federal bench is still majority male. In a few decades, the gender shift will have reached its natural conclusion. Many people think wokeness is over, slain by the vibe shift, but if wokeness is the result of demographic feminization, then it will never be over as long as the demographics remain unchanged.
As a woman myself, I am grateful for the opportunities I have had to pursue a career in writing and editing. Thankfully, I don’t think solving the feminization problem requires us to shut any doors in women’s faces. We simply have to restore fair rules. Right now we have a nominally meritocratic system in which it is illegal for women to lose. Let’s make hiring meritocratic in substance and not just name, and we will see how it shakes out. Make it legal to have a masculine office culture again. Remove the HR lady’s veto power. I think people will be surprised to discover how much of our current feminization is attributable to institutional changes like the advent of HR, which were brought about by legal changes and which legal changes can reverse.
Because, after all, I am not just a woman. I am also someone with a lot of disagreeable opinions, who will find it hard to flourish if society becomes more conflict-averse and consensus-driven. I am the mother of sons, who will never reach their full potential if they have to grow up in a feminized world. I am—we all are—dependent on institutions like the legal system, scientific research, and democratic politics that support the American way of life, and we will all suffer if they cease to perform the tasks they were designed to do.
Helen Andrews is the author of Boomers: The Men and Women Who Promised Freedom and Delivered Disaster.
That there has been a massive uptake in those – especially young people – thinking they are the wrong sex and are in need of transitioning is clear for the whole world to see. The stats are readily available telling us of this rapid and remarkable rise in those seeking to transition. The numbers are quite shocking.
But one bit of anecdotal evidence can also be appealed to here. I have over 300 articles on the trans cult now on my website, but the earliest pieces did not appear until around 14 years ago. Before this time, the topic was simply not really an issue – not just for me but pretty much the whole world.
So why did the trans phenomena all of a sudden spring up in the West? If this is some genuine medical issue that has always been with us and must be acted upon, then why was no one even talking about it until just a few short decades ago?
And the opposite side of this is true as well. If all this is fixed and absolute, then why has the big surge in trans cases now suddenly been followed by a steep decline? As I wrote in a recent piece, figures from the US make this clear:
A report from the Centre for Heterodox Social Science in the US has found that there are far fewer young people now identifying as trans or homosexual over the past few years. As one media discussion states:
“The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), which conducts a large annual survey of US undergraduates, polled over 60,000 students in 2025. My analysis of the raw data shows that in that year, just 3.6% of respondents identified as a gender other than male or female. By comparison, the figure was 5.2% in 2024 and 6.8% in both 2022 and 2023. In other words, the share of trans-identified students has effectively halved in just two years.” https://billmuehlenberg.com/2025/10/24/on-the-trans-frontlines/
Indeed, as can be rightly asked: If genitals don’t define gender, how does removing them affirm it? Either this is some innate condition, or it is not. If people are born homosexual, as the activists claim, and cannot change, then how can people change from one sex to the other? The trans agenda is all bogus. It is all radical ideology, not biological reality.
Social conditioning
And that explains this rapid rise and then decline in those seeking to “change” their sex. Many of us have argued that there is much blame to be laid at the feet of the media, of leftist politicians, of radical activist groups, and even popular culture. That is, so much of this is due to social contagion, peer pressure and the like.
It is just another trendy social pattern we are seeing. Nobody was complaining about being born into the wrong body until the past five minutes of human history. Now all of a sudden kazillions of folks want to hop on the trans bandwagon.
It has become a hip thing to do, and there is plenty of social pressure to join in on these things. But this is not just mere speculation on my part. There is a growing body of solid evidence to suggest that this is exactly the case. Let me point you to one key article on this.
Just a few days ago an important piece appeared in the Wall Street Journal by Colin Wright, an evolutionary biologist and a fellow at the Manhattan Institute. The title and subtitle say it all:
“Evidence Backs the Transgender Social-Contagion Hypothesis The share of young people claiming another ‘gender identity’ exploded. Now surveys show it is receding.”
The piece is worth quoting from. He begins this way:
I was an academic scientist at Penn State in February 2020, when I became the target of an online mob for tweeting about transgender identity. I shared a link to an article from the Guardian with the accompanying quote: “Sweden’s Board of Health and Welfare confirmed a 1,500% rise between 2008 and 2018 in gender dysphoria diagnoses among 13- to 17-year-olds born as girls.” My commentary was brief: “Two words: social contagion.”
Within hours, colleagues denounced me as a “transphobic” bigot. Anonymous activists emailed universities to poison my job prospects. A professional job board even published mock job listings warning others not to hire me. My academic career never recovered.
But I wasn’t making an offhand remark or comparing a group of people to a disease vector, as some accused me of doing. I was referring to research published by Lisa Littman, a physician and researcher formerly with Brown university, who had coined the term “rapid-onset gender dysphoria” in a 2018 peer-reviewed paper to describe a newly emerging cohort of adolescents—overwhelmingly girls with no childhood history of gender dysphoria or even sex nonconformity—who suddenly began describing themselves as transgender, often after friends in their peer groups did the same. Dr. Littman proposed that this pattern was best explained by social contagion, meaning the spread of ideas or behaviors through peer influence. The term isn’t an insult; it’s a well-established sociological concept used to describe how trends such as eating disorders and even suicide clusters can spread.
Suggesting that social factors might cause or contribute to transgender identification violated fashionable left-wing dogma: that “gender identity” is an innate and immutable trait, and that some people are born with one that conflicts with their sex. This claim underpins both medical practice and legal strategy—from puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and surgeries for minors to arguments that “gender identity” deserves civil-rights protections akin to race or sex. Progressives treat those who question these ideas as heretics and bigots.
He looks at how the activists seek to respond to this, and then offers more of the research. He then concludes his piece with these words:
The purported evidence for innate, immutable transgender identity is deeply flawed, however, as is clear upon closer examination. Studies of neuroanatomy, heritability and prenatal hormone exposure that claim a biological basis for gender identity are replete with small and selective samples, poor replication and uncontrolled confounding factors such as sexual orientation and cross-sex hormone treatment. Properly interpreted, they describe correlates of sex nonconformity and same-sex attraction, not proof of an innate transgender identity.
The notion that transgender identity is biologically hard-wired can’t explain why there has been a more than 20-fold surge in those identifying as transgender in the U.S. since 2010. The social-contagion hypothesis was never hateful. It was purely descriptive: a recognition that social and cultural factors shape human behavior. For years, even hinting that such factors influenced transgender identities could end a career. Now, as data accumulate, this is becoming harder for anyone to deny.
This is not the end of the debate of course. The activists will not give up, and they will simply dismiss any research to the contrary as another example of transphobia. As Wright puts it:
That doesn’t mean the transgender phenomenon will necessarily collapse. It’s possible that these identities will persist, not because they reflect a long-suppressed biological condition, but because activist, scientific and medical institutions have redefined transgender to encompass virtually any degree of nonconformity to traditional sex stereotypes. A masculine girl or feminine boy may now be labeled as “trans.”
It is good to see some fightback against the trans mafia. For the sake of our women and children, we need much more of it.
Trump doubts his salvation. Christianophobia. Percentage of young adults identifying as “Non-Binary” plummets.
Trump Doubts His Salvation
“I don’t think there’s anything going to get me in heaven,” Trump told reporters en route to Israel on Air Force One, after being asked if the peace deal he helped broker between Israel and Hamas has boosted his chances. “I think I’m not, maybe, heaven-bound.”
He’s right, of course. We can’t get to Heaven by our good works, simply because we never have enough of them to deserve eternal life. And we are weighted down by our bad works, which because of our fallen condition will always outnumber the good works. We need atonement. But God has provided that, freely, in His incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ. By faith in Christ and what He has done for us, we can be justified.
It’s healthy that President Trump is realizing that even bringing about world peace, if he could do that, will not get him to Heaven. He needs the next step. He needs to repent of his sins–which he has famously refused to do, insisting that he doesn’t need forgiveness–and turn to Christ, who will take his sins into Himself, impute to him His righteousness, and bring him to Heaven.
I take President Trump’s spiritual musings seriously. I find the doubt and the fears of this powerful, egotistical man extremely poignant. I refuse to mock him for this, dismiss it as a joke, or heap up all of his offenses to prove that he is indeed Hell-bound as many of his critics will do. Nor will I excuse him and insist that he will go to Heaven after all because he is such a good person, as many of his more fervent supporters are likely to do.
Let’s do this: Let’s pray for this man. Whether you are a supporter or a critic, pray that President Trump will come to the salvation that is in Christ. If you are a supporter, you want the best for him. If you are a critic, this is your chance to pray for your enemy, as Jesus instructs us to do. Not just pray for him as the president, though do that too (1 Timothy 2:2), but as a human being. Pray for the salvation of Donald Trump.
Christianophobia
You’ve heard of Islamophobia, homophobia, transphobia. . . .To those words we can now add Christianophobia.
So reports the Catholic News Agency: “The term ‘Christianophobia’ has returned to the forefront of public debate in Europe, fueled by a growing number of incidents targeting churches, religious symbols, and believers.”
The term Christianophobia isn’t new, but it gives a name to realities documented by statistics.
According to the Observatory on Intolerance and Discrimination Against Christians in Europe, the attacks ranged from the desecration of churches and Christian symbols (62% of cases), to arson (10%), threats (8%), and direct acts of violence (7%).
In a written response to a European Commission inquiry, it was revealed that in 2023 alone there were 2,444 incidents of violence against Christians across 35 European countries, including 1,000 cases in France.
So now they are giving a name for it.
Actually, as the article says, the term Christianophobia was used in a United Nations religious freedom resolution in 2017, which deplores “discrimination, intolerance and violence. . .motivated by Islamophobia, anti-Semitism and Christianophobia.”
The -phobia suffix in this context does not mean “irrational fear of,” as in psychiatric conditions, such as acrophobia (fear of heights), claustrophobia (fear of confined spaces), agoraphobia (fear of public places), dentophobia (fear of dentists), and coulrophobia (fear of clowns).
Rather, using the suffix with Islam, homosexuality, transgenderism, and now Christianity means “hostility against,” or even “opposition to,” while keeping the psychiatric connotations that implies such opposition is due to a mental illness.
So now Christians can wrap themselves in the mantle of victimhood. When secularists criticize us, we can accuse them of Christianophobia, whereupon, if they are woke enough, they are likely to back down.
Percentage of Young Adults Identifying as “Non-Binary” Plummets
Half as many college students identify as “non-binary”–that is, neither male nor female–as there were two years ago.
The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), which conducts a large annual survey of US undergraduates, polled over 60,000 students in 2025. My analysis of the raw data shows that in that year, just 3.6% of respondents identified as a gender other than male or female. By comparison, the figure was 5.2% in 2024 and 6.8% in both 2022 and 2023. In other words, the share of trans-identified students has effectively halved in just two years.
This trend is especially marked in elite institutions. Andover Phillips Academy in suburban Boston surveys over three-quarters of its students annually. In 2023, 9.2% identified as neither male nor female. This year, that number has crashed to just 3%. A similar story emerges at Brown University: 5% of students identified as non-binary in 2022 and 2023, but by 2025 that share had dropped to 2.6%.
More surveys ask about sexual orientation than gender identity. And while there is a broader spread of data points, the basic pattern looks similar: rising non-conformity from 2010 until 2023, with a near 10-point return to the norm in the ensuing two years in most datasets.
Kaufmann seems to be conflating “trans” with “non-binary.” Someone who is “transgender” does identify as either male or female, despite what biology would indicate. A look at the actual study shows that the dramatic decline is in the percentage of young adults who had considered themselves neither male nor female; that is, to use the parlance, “queer.”
The findings are indeed significant, though. Bi-sexuality, as well as the panoply of gender identities such as “pansexual,” “asexual,” and the other categories signified by the “+” in LGBTQ+, is way down. Regular homosexuality is pretty stable. Basically, LG is the same, but BTQ+ is dropping.
How can that be? These gender and sexual categories were said to be innate characteristics that could not be changed. Why are non-binary sexual identities dropping, while the binary of male and female is reasserting itself?
The study tries to account for its findings, but propose answers–mental health improvements, the vibe shift against wokism, rise in religion–don’t seem to correlate.
Kaufmann concludes, “For young people, gender and sexual identity are now independent fashions that rise and fall separately from other cultural and political currents.” Fashions? Gender and sexual identity are fashions?
The study is even more emphatic: “It appears that trans and queer are going out of fashion among young people.”
For hundreds of years, men dominated the major institutions in western society, but over the past several decades there has been an unprecedented shift. Today, leftist women either dominate or are on their way to dominating most of our major institutions. As a result, the way that things get done has been totally turned upside down. Even our largest corporations are now making consensus-driven decisions that are based on emotion rather than on facts. If you insist on disagreeing with the consensus, you may find yourself being “canceled”. Defending the narratives that the group has established and protecting the feelings of favored individuals have become far more important goals than getting to the truth.
A few days ago, a conservative woman named Helen Andrews published an article that is taking the Internet by storm. In that article, she equates the feminization of our society with the rise of “wokeness”…
Everything you think of as wokeness involves prioritizing the feminine over the masculine: empathy over rationality, safety over risk, cohesion over competition. Other writers who have proposed their own versions of the Great Feminization thesis, such as Noah Carl or Bo Winegard and Cory Clark, who looked at feminization’s effects on academia, offer survey data showing sex differences in political values. One survey, for example, found that 71 percent of men said protecting free speech was more important than preserving a cohesive society, and 59 percent of women said the opposite.
Andrews is a woman, and she is certainly not suggesting that women are bad.
But she is pointing out that things have gotten way out of balance.
When I was growing up, I never thought about the political views of my doctors, and I didn’t really care.
Men tend to be better at compartmentalizing than women, and wokeness was in many ways a society-wide failure to compartmentalize. Traditionally, an individual doctor might have opinions on the political issues of the day but he would regard it as his professional duty to keep those opinions out of the examination room. Now that medicine has become more feminized, doctors wear pins and lanyards expressing views on controversial issues from gay rights to Gaza. They even bring the credibility of their profession to bear on political fads, as when doctors said Black Lives Matter protests could continue in violation of Covid lockdowns because racism was a public health emergency.
Compartmentalization is a good thing.
If I hurt my arm and go to see a doctor, I don’t want to hear what he thinks about gay rights.
I just want him to fix my arm.
Unfortunately, we live at a time where most people feel like they have to signal whether they are for or against the liberal consensus that has dominated our society for the past several decades.
The reason why the left hates Donald Trump so much is because he has become the embodiment of the backlash to “wokeness”, and that is also the reason why many conservatives love him so much.
Donald Trump is not polite, and he is not afraid to express controversial views that are in direct opposition to the “woke” narratives that our major institutions have been pushing.
Many conservatives think that “wokeness” has been defeated now that Trump is in the White House, but the truth is that once Trump is gone the millions of “HR ladies” that dominate our major institutions will still be there.
On average, girls in 3rd grade outperform boys in reading and writing by roughly half a grade level. By the end of 8th grade, girls are almost a full grade ahead. That’s according to a 2018 study from Stanford Center for Education Policy Analysis that tracked assessments from 10,000 districts across the nation.
Normal female behavior is encouraged in our public schools, while normal male behavior is frowned upon.
So a lot of boys end up deeply hating school.
At one time boys could at least look forward to participating in organized sports after school, but now participation in such sports by boys is “declining rapidly”…
Youth sport participation among boys in the United States has been declining rapidly over the past ten years. The cancellation of sports seasons during the unscientific and draconian COVID lockdowns has only exacerbated this devastating trend.
According to a survey conducted earlier this year by The Sports & Fitness Industry Association, the percentage of boys who regularly competed in sports dropped by nine points over the past decade—while the participation rate for girls, while still less than boys, has increased slightly.
In high school, the achievement gap between boys and girls is even larger…
Girls, in addition to being more likely to take advanced courses in high school, tend to earn higher grade point averages than boys in high school. In one statewide study of public high school students, 51 percent of graduating female students earned a high school GPA above 3.0, compared to 36 percent of male students. Girls were 1.9 times more likely to be in the top 5 percent of graduating GPAs, and boys were 1.6 times more likely to be in the bottom 5 percent of GPAs.
Of course it doesn’t end there.
At this point, young women are far more likely to get a college degree than young men are…
In 1972, the year Title IX was passed to promote gender equality in higher education, men earned 56.4 percent of all bachelor’s degrees, while women earned 43.6 percent—a 13-point gap. By 2019, there was a 15-point difference—in the other direction, with women earning about 58 percent of all bachelor’s degrees. The pandemic accelerated that trend: from 2019 to 2020, male first-time college enrollment dropped by 5.1 percent, compared to less than 1 percent for women.
This trend has enormous implications for the future of our society, because college graduates are the future leaders of our society.
In other words, they are the people that are going to run our major institutions in the future.
In her excellent article, Helen Andrews was particularly concerned about what this is going to mean for our legal system…
The field that frightens me most is the law. All of us depend on a functioning legal system, and, to be blunt, the rule of law will not survive the legal profession becoming majority female. The rule of law is not just about writing rules down. It means following them even when they yield an outcome that tugs at your heartstrings or runs contrary to your gut sense of which party is more sympathetic.
I very much agree with her.
It won’t be too long before our legal system is completely and utterly dominated by liberal women…
A much more important tipping point is when law schools became majority female, which occurred in 2016, or when law firm associates became majority female, which occurred in 2023. When Sandra Day O’Connor was appointed to the high court, only 5 percent of judges were female. Today women are 33 percent of the judges in America and 63 percent of the judges appointed by President Joe Biden.
Once liberal women have achieved a stranglehold over our legal system, what will our society look like?
That is not something that I am eager to imagine.
As Andrews has correctly pointed out, even now our anti-discrimination laws essentially require “that every workplace be feminized”…
Anti-discrimination law requires that every workplace be feminized. A landmark case in 1991 found that pinup posters on the walls of a shipyard constituted a hostile environment for women, and that principle has grown to encompass many forms of masculine conduct. Dozens of Silicon Valley companies have been hit with lawsuits alleging “frat boy culture” or “toxic bro culture,” and a law firm specializing in these suits brags of settlements ranging from $450,000 to $8 million.
Women can sue their bosses for running a workplace that feels like a fraternity house, but men can’t sue when their workplace feels like a Montessori kindergarten. Naturally employers err on the side of making the office softer. So if women are thriving more in the modern workplace, is that really because they are outcompeting men? Or is it because the rules have been changed to favor them?
You aren’t going to get sued if you don’t hire enough men or if your workplace does not feel welcoming for men.
But if you don’t hire enough women or if your workplace does not feel welcoming for women you could get sued into oblivion.
Sadly, many men feel as though our entire society has become extremely unwelcoming to them at this stage.
Men die “deaths of despair” from suicide, drugs, or alcohol at nearly three times the rate of women. And often, those hit hardest by these trends are working-class, men of color, or both.
One of the reasons why our society is such a mess today is because we have allowed vast hordes of extremely liberal “HR ladies” to run things.
If we stay on the path that we are currently on, the future of our society isn’t going to be bright.
Millions of young males that are being pushed aside by our society are going to end up as addicts, and millions of them will find themselves in prison.
Actually, that has already happened.
Millions upon millions of lives have already been wasted, and millions of young boys will soon be joining their ranks if something is not done.
Unfortunately, the “HR ladies” that are now in control of our major institutions seem to think that things are running just fine.
I was having a conversation about trust in the medical industry with my doctor, and he told me that his patients were just being tricked by “social media”, whereas doctors like him are “evidence-based”. First of all, the people I follow on social media are now running the NIH, FDA and CSC. So now I am the science. Second of all, the public’s distrust of doctors is based on evidence.
Let’s take a look at an article from the Manhattan Institute‘s City Journal by Leon Sapir about the American Medical Association:
The American Medical Association (AMA) is the largest and most powerful doctors’ organization in the United States. It has also consistently supported pediatric medical transition, or “gender-affirming care,” which includes puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgeries administered to minors. The AMA has passed a resolution promising to protect these procedures, joined an amicus brief in a lawsuit challenging a state age-restriction law, and written a letter urging state governors to veto similar legislation.
So, I think what consumers of medical services are seeing what the professional body of doctors says about transing kids, and they are thinking “gender dysphoria is a mental illness, and you cannot treat it with hormone replacement, and sex mutilation surgeries”. We are not just thinking about long-term consequences like infertility and continuous expensive treatments. Many of these doctors aren’t citing the studies at all, just asking parents “would you rather have a dead girl or a live boy?” That not evidence-based.
More:
The AMA has done all this despite the findings from systematic reviews—the gold standard of evidence-based medicine (EBM)—of weak evidence for these treatments’ mental health benefits, and despite the corresponding health risks.
[…]Skeptics of the AMA’s position have wondered how a professional medical organization could have ignored systematic reviews. New videos published by the Daily Wire provide a possible answer. The videos reveal the AMA’s president, the Michigan-based otolaryngologist Bobby Mukkamala, making false claims about pediatric gender medicine and demonstrating ignorance of basic concepts in EBM.
[…]In accordance with his belief about expertise, Mukkamala recommended that a legislator consult with one gender doctor in particular, fellow Michigander Jesse Krikorian. The Daily Wire videos also reveal that Krikorian, like Mukkamala, is unfamiliar with basic principles of EBM and with existing research on pediatric gender medicine.
Now, my doctor would probably have a very negative view of parents ability to form opinions about health care policy. But actually, ordinary people like me are following the studies closely, and ordinary people like you are reading about the studies, too.
The AMA’s stance contradicts years of research I’ve covered, including:
The UK’s Cass Review, which I discussed in my May 2025 post linked above, is a gold-standard analysis. It found no consistent mental health benefits from puberty blockers or hormones, yet the AMA pushes these treatments regardless. I’m blogging about the gold standard studies, but AMA people think that ordinary people are not following the science. We are. Christians and conservatives bound our worldviews off of what science tells us. We are not being swayed by Big Medicine and Big LGBT to suppress the science. The AMA argues gender-affirming care reduces distress, but the Cass Review and other studies show no consistent mental health benefits.
The rest of that City Journal article talks about some of the myths that are believed by senior people at the AMA. (Either they are deliberately lying because transing kids is “a big money-maker“, or they are just ignorant of the research)
Here’s one example:
The AMA president… asserted that the suicide rate— not suicidal ideation or attempts, but deaths by suicide—among people who identify as transgender is between “50 and 70 percent.” He was clearly implying that gender-transition procedures for minors are necessary to prevent these tragic outcomes.
This claim is baseless. Indeed, even the most outspoken advocates of pediatric transition refrain from saying that suicide—as opposed to suicidal ideation or attempts—is this high among trans-identifying youth… Last December, ACLU lawyer and LGBTQ & HIV Project co-director Chase Strangio admitted in a Supreme Court hearing that “suicide, thankfully and admittedly, is rare” among trans-identifying youth.
[…]No credible evidence shows that medical transition resolves or lowers the rate of suicidal behavior, and some evidence suggests that suicide risk remains significantly elevated—though still nowhere near the figures cited by Mukkamala—following medical transition.
I think my doctor is probably thinking that rank-and-file Americans are not following these issues closely. We interviewed Dr. Jay Richards on our podcast, who is one of the experts on this issue at the Heritage Foundation think tank. I follow Jay Richards on Twitter, and he tweets out all the studies that he expects ordinary Americans to read them – at least the abstracts!
Heritage is a think tank that influences legislation and policy in the federal government. I read everything that Jay tweets, and that’s how I find all these studies. So, maybe social media is not such a bad thing, if it leads to the studies. It’s certainly a lot better than listening to NPR and reading the New York Times and the Washington Post and expecting to have accurate views about these topics.
Transgenderism is not a civil rights movement; it’s a social engineering experiment. The LGBT movement is not a struggle for equal rights; it’s a covert war for political control. The agenda of the people involved in the spheres of trans-activism are radical zealots hellbent on the destruction of their enemies by any means necessary – And if you believe in logic, objective reality, biological science and moral imperative, then you are one of their enemies.
A prime strategy of the trans movement is the indoctrination of our children. They rarely have any children of their own and in order to perpetuate their numbers they must groom future generations to their cause. And, it has become clear that if they can’t indoctrinate our kids, they are perfectly willing to murder our kids.
There are a lot of “watchers on the wall” in the alternative media that have been fighting for decades against the adoption of woke (or politically correct) narratives in America and I think many of us have grown tired of playing games of logic and reason. Many conservatives and libertarians today put endless stock into the power of debate, but after fighting this fight for so long you start to realize that debate rarely changes the minds of zealots.
We can present an airtight case for our ideals to the public and hope for the best, and I think we have been successful in many regards. However, I would suggest that we are not changing people’s views so much as we are informing people who simply weren’t paying attention until now.
We are adding more and more of the fence-sitters to our side, but we are doing very little to solve the root problem. Some conflicts cannot be dealt with using reason. In the end, there is something to be said for brutality over debate.
For the past couple years I have been predicting that the political left was going to take a nose dive (globally) in terms of government influence, but I also predicted that they would grow increasingly unstable and revert to targeted violence over their loss of power. In my article from January titled “The Monkey Wrench Sabotage Of America Begs For An Authoritarian Response”, I noted:
“Leftists throughout modern history have a habit of engaging in destabilization efforts when they don’t get what they want. They view their motivations as sacrosanct and beyond criticism, be it “saving democracy” or “saving the planet” or “taking down capitalists and colonists”.
In every case where the political left had influence over social conditions and then lost that power, they revert to directed exponential disruption and violence from riots to assassination. They claim to care about the right of the majority to have their voices heard, but in reality they don’t care at all. When the majority goes against the leftist narrative, leftists go rogue…”
Damn, I hate being right about this stuff but the evidence speaks for itself. The thing about the political left is that they are cowards at their core. Their relationship with warfare is more subversive, avoiding a stand-up confrontation whenever possible and only targeting people who can’t defend themselves.
The latest attack involves a leftist transgender activist named “Robin Westman” (originally Robert Westman, a man pretending to be a woman) murdering two children and injuring 17 others at a Catholic school and church in Minneapolis, then killing himself.
The resulting anger against the greater trans movement makes perfect sense: Americans have transgender fatigue. We are fed up with these unhinged lunatics. We are done with them, and they’re not going to like what comes next.
First, I want to break down what pisses me off about this shooting, beyond the targeting of innocent children. Specifically, I want to address the responses by the corporate media, Democrats and the media in general.
Is It “Unfair” To Blame An Ideology?
Democrat leaders say that Westman’s actions are separate from his beliefs and that conservatives are “trying to make the shooting political”. Bullshit. Transgender activism is the core influence in these shootings.
Westman’s writings reveal his violent fantasies about killing children, including wanting to be the “scary horrible monster standing over those powerless kids.” Westman’s videos, posted hours before the shootings, also show the phrases “kill Donald Trump” and “for the children” scrawled on gun magazines. On one AR magazine he writes “I am the Woker, baby. Why so Queerious?”
It is the trans ideology that equipped Robert Westman with the excuses to rationalize the killing of helpless kids. His writings display a clear hatred of Christians, conservatives and Donald Trump. These expressions are normal within the transgender community; they argue in favor of violence against conservatives on a regular basis.
Their assertion? That conservatives stopping children from being pumped full of puberty blockers or having their body parts mutilated is akin to extermination. Remember, these people see your children as targets for indoctrination and conversion – This is how they reproduce their kind. So, in their twisted minds, our efforts to stop trans grooming is the same as genocide.
There are many cases of politically motivated violence against innocent people in which the act cannot be separated from the ideology that inspired it. The word for this is “terrorism”. Robert Westman’s attack was trans terrorism, pure and simple, and there are many others out there like him.
Was Westman Actually “Right Wing”?
This has been the go-to media narrative after almost every leftist act of violence; they try to distance themselves while still defending the person’s motives. In the case of Westman, his writings are clear; he’s a leftist. The media has latched onto two peripheral arguments to say otherwise:
First, Westman hated Jews. The media claims this makes him a “Neo-Nazi” and that automatically makes him a right-winger. Let’s be clear, leftists today are so antisemitic it’s enough to make the average Neo-Nazi blush. They hate Jews and they hate Israel and they’ve been courting Muslim groups for an alliance for the better part of a decade. Are there some right wing people that agree with Westman? Sure. But agreeing on a single issue doesn’t make him conservative.
Second, reports suggest that conservative/libertarian guntuber Brandon Herrera was mentioned in the shooter’s writings. Westman supposedly claims that he “met Herrera at SHOT Show in Las Vegas” and that they agreed on a number of topics. Herrera says he has no recollection of meeting Westman or any conversation with the trans lunatic.
He notes that a person like Westman would stand out like a sore thumb at an event like SHOT Show, which is generally restricted to industry professionals and the firearms media. SHOT Show has also put out a statement indicating that there is no record of Westman ever attending their conference.
My theory? I think the Herrera mentions have been planted as a way to distract from Westman’s full bore leftist cultism, offering the woke movement deniability. In other words, it’s a fake out that doesn’t match with any other evidence presented on the man’s background.
Transgender Ideology Is A Convenient Facade For The Mentally Ill
I am so tired of the mainstream media continuing to perpetuate the fallacy that people can choose their gender. Even in the case of a mass killer, they insist on “respecting the person’s pronouns”. This behavior is enabling these mentally ill bottom feeders to act the way they do.
Westman in his manifesto confesses that his transition efforts were a mistake and that he wished he had never “brainwashed himself”. He noted that he “wished he was a girl” but had accepted that it was impossible. He kept his hair long as the “last shred” of the facade of being transgender because he was afraid to cut it and admit “embarrassing defeat”.
This revelation supports what I have been saying for years – The vast majority of trans people are frauds. They are putting on an activist costume because they are rebels desperate for any cause to latch onto. People with legitimate gender dysphoria are exceedingly rare, but mental illness in general is common in America today.
The trans ideology was weaponized by globalists and governments over the course of the last decade. There’s a good reason why the number of people that identify as trans skyrocketed since 2018 – The level of propaganda aimed at children has been intense and the incentives to gain social approval are overwhelming.
The philosophy appeals to people with preexisting emotional disturbances and it is especially attractive to narcissists who gravitate to the moral and scientific relativism inherent in gender fluid thinking. In other words, it’s easy to tell which people are going to be a potential problem in any given community, just look for the trans flags and clown makeup.
In the wake of the shooting Democrats are trying to turn the event into a gun issue. It’s not. Millions of Americans have guns and almost no one decides to go shoot up a school filled with little kids. No, this is about an ideological cult that glorifies mental illness. This is about transgenderism. Trans activists and the people who enable them are the problem.
I want to be clear that I’m not talking about all people who dress up as the opposite gender (or sex, whatever you prefer). There are conservative trans people out there that disagree with the LGBT movement on most things. I’m talking about the leftist political militants. They need to go. There is no room for them in the US any longer.
During the peak of America’s asylum era crime plunged to all time lows. If asylums are coupled with extended prison time for repeat offenders, crime nearly disappears. There were trespasses and abuses within some hospitals that should be addressed, but I would argue that overall the use of asylums was an undeniable net positive for society. After we shut them down, crime skyrocketed. We’ve been trying to cope ever since using state prison systems.
The time for discourse is over. The time for compromise and compassion is over. The time for brutal ignominy is at hand. At the very least these people need to be laughed at, mocked and shamed out of existence. Every aspect of trans activism needs to be shunned and erased from our society. Those who express clear threats of violence need to be locked up as they would have been 70 years ago.
Over time the cancer of wokeness is going to disappear, but this long term cultural shift does not resolve the immediate threat. Either we throw them up in padded rooms or we boot them from the country, but letting these zealots continue to wreak havoc, or possibly regain political power one day, is not an option.
* * *
If you would like to support the work that Alt-Market does while also receiving content on advanced tactics for defeating the globalist agenda, subscribe to our exclusive newsletter The Wild Bunch Dispatch. Learn more about it HERE.
Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ZeroHedge.
Things like transgenderism and transhumanism are both on a roll, and they have often been discussed on my site. Of interest is how much the two are actually connected. They tend to play off each other, and we need to be aware of this. One new book powerfully makes this case.
American writer Jennifer Bilek has written a number of incisive and hard-hitting pieces on transhumanism, transgenderism and the war we are in with these forces of heavily financed darkness. In addition to being found on her own blog, The 11th Hour, many have appeared in such journals as First Things and Human Events.
Thankfully 27 of her articles have now been brought together in the new book, Transsexual, Transgender, Transhuman (Spinifex, 2024). These important essays demonstrate what a prophetic role Bilek has in sounding the alarm about the very real dangers we are now in. And given how much Big Money is behind all this, there is all the more reason to be aware of her warnings.
The more she dug into what was going on here, the more concerned she became. She lets us know what she has been learning in the Introduction:
In my research and writing I follow the money trail behind the gender industry, a domineering and monied business pursuit with a very powerful lobby which is advanced as a human rights campaign. The gender industry is the promotion of the adult male fetish of transsexualism, rebranded for today’s youth, grooming them for industrial body disassociation.
Behind the slogans about freedom of expression, and euphemisms such as ‘gender care’ and ‘gender dysphoria’ is a marketing apparatus so unrelenting and extreme, it has acted upon the populace like cult indoctrination. It has captured large swathes of the public imagination, corporations, educational and medical institutions, and governments across the Western world and beyond, by the idea that the human sex boundary between males and females is a social construct. (p 1)
She offers plenty of documentation on all this, and her chapter on Big Pharma is certainly revealing. A few more quotes:
When pharmacology and technology made it possible for the tiny number of men with this fetish to escalate their behaviors to appropriate surgically constructed facsimiles of female biology, or synthetic sex characteristics, transsexualism took root in the medical industry….
As the technology and pharmaceuticals to perform more realistic synthetic sex surgeries advance, society is forced to accept this paraphilia and accept the ideology that’s developed around it, which denies our biological reality, raising us above the natural world, where we are supposed to thrive in a living tapestry. (pp. 31-32)
Of interest, Bilek was once a person of the left, but the radical progressives of today are a far cry from the old left. So she found herself shifting to the right. She says this about the “new, new left in America” and where things now stand:
Emerging out of the carcass of that potentially revolutionary movement is a left that has recently climbed into bed with those same big banks. Snuggled up in bed with them, fluffing their pillows, are Big Pharma and Big Tech. The left is running around screaming at protests, getting wide media coverage, silencing voices in our universities and institutions, and shouting loudly that people claiming their sex is not male or female need human rights. These manufactured sexes are being supported by, promoted, and advertised by Big Pharma, Big Tech and Big Banking. This new, unrecognizable left sees no irony at all in their behavior.
These purported new sexes, ostensibly requiring special human rights, depend on a narrative that sexual dimorphism isn’t real, that it exists on a spectrum of sexes. This is the gender industry, and with projected profit margins reaching into the billions by 2026, for surgeries on healthy sex organs alone and the amount of advertising curated to sell it, it is going to be very profitable indeed. (pp. 43-44)
She also argues that the homosexual movement has been “hijacked by a radical transhumanist agenda.” Says Bilek:
Western societies are in the vortex of Transhumanism. We are being sucked in because this radical transhumanist agenda and its eugenicist underpinnings are being obscured by a popular LGB human rights veneer.
“Transgenderism” is a word acting as a social bridge between transsexualism and transhumanism. It is an umbrella term with weak borders that allows this bridging quality to transhumanism to nimbly evade scrutiny. Transsexualism is largely an adult male fetish that compulsively objectifies and covets womanhood. Men with autogynephila (the professional name for this form of transsexualism) seek to medically appropriate the sexed humanity of women by purchasing surgical simulacrums of their sexed reality, in parts, to assuage their compulsion. (pp. 49-50)
And again:
Transgenderism/transhumanism is being forced into every sector of society, government, and even into children’s schools where they are taught that they can be boys or girls as they choose; it is a bridge to get us to a place of social acquiescence to these changes. This grooming process would be impossible without the LGB civil rights political apparatus and the already culturally cultivated acceptance of homosexual people. (p. 53)
She closes that chapter with these words: “Without a banner of human rights, the transhumanist boat would sink like a stone. It uses vulnerable children as fodder for the coming revolution in assisted fertility to force our trajectory as a species away from the biosphere and further into technology—unless we stop them.” (p. 54)
In Ch. 9 she notes how the once small and struggling homosexual movement has morphed into an all-powerful and all-conquering giant, squashing all opposition along the way: “Today’s movement, however, looks nothing like that band of persecuted outcasts. The LGBT rights agenda—note the addition of ‘T’—has become a powerful, aggressive force in American society. Its advocates stand at the top of media, academia, the professions, and, most important, Big Business and Big Philanthropy.” (p. 79)
Transsexual Transgender Transhuman: Dispatches from The 11th Hour by Bilek, Jennifer (Author)
She documents how billionaires and Big Corporations are behind all this, and then says:
[T]he LGB civil rights movement of yore has morphed into a relentless behemoth, one that has strong ties to the medical industrial complex and global corporatists. The pharmaceutical lobby is the largest lobbying entity in Congress. Although activists present the LGBT movement as a weak, powerless group suffering oppression and discrimination, in truth it wields enormous power and influence—power it increasingly uses to remake our laws, schools, and society. (p. 83)
Another chapter deals with related themes:
Under Techno-Capitalism, hatred of women is promoted to commodify female bodies and profit from women’s pain.
Most people probably think more about the liberating elements of technology than how it drives our servitude. We may think about the drawbacks of individual technological developments, but overall, we’re not thinking a lot about the unfettered growth of technology, its speed, complexity and its vast spread. As technology is sewn to unfettered capitalism it must grow or die. It must breach new boundaries or wither. Techno-Capitalism, or technology as it is wedded to capitalism functions of its own accord now, driven by profit. The oppression and hatred of females has become part of this system, which continually magnifies it. (pp. 97-98)
The radical sexual and technological war against children is especially a big concern for Bilek – as it should be for all of us. A chapter on this is also worth drawing to your attention. She writes:
The ‘transgender child’ is a corporate, legal, and technological construct. Its manifestation was necessary for substantiating the evolution of an adult male fetish into an industry of owning women’s reproductive capacities via medical technology. An adult male fetish of owning womanhood, and cutting it up for the market, is a very hard sell for the public.
Children distressed about feeling wrong in their sexed realities being promoted as having special human identities, needing protection and rights, and medical manipulation, hits the marketing sweet spot, because it cultivates our empathy. (p. 161)
Bilek minces no words on this matter:
Societies are not being rapidly overhauled for people’s identities, children’s body dysphoria, or some amorphous ‘gender identity’. They are being overhauled to change the way we think of ourselves as a species: a sexually dimorphic species. Children are being groomed to think of themselves as parts, not wholly sexed beings. If we wish to stop this assault on children, we must be clear on where it comes from, where it is going and why it is happening, or children will continue to be used as eugenic fodder for a future in which they will be reduced to commodities. (p. 165)
And her summarising words are worth offering here:
If I have learned anything in the past decade of researching the gender industry as a front for a transhumanist paradigm, I know that resisting it demands no compromise. We must tell the absolute truth about what it is and what it is doing.
The corporate agenda to deconstruct human sex is a Goliath of power playing on Our empathy, dividing us by positioning us against their construct of alternative humans who need special protections. The laws transhumanists are passing, and their attempts to rapidly overhaul our societies, institutions, and language, are all formulated to advance a transformation of humanity and the reality that we live in. They are not hiding this. It is up to each of us to open our eyes and understand this transformation. (p. 193)
These 27 chapters/essays make for frightening reading. But we must be aware of what is happening in our posthuman world. Thank you Jennifer Bilek for exposing this nefarious agenda at work.
PITTSBURGH, PA — Social justice warriors scored another victory today, as retail chain American Eagle issued a public apology and replaced Sydney Sweeney in its ad campaign with a fat, transgender double amputee of color.
The new campaign featuring Sweeney had caused controversy after American Eagle was accused of choosing an attractive young Caucasian woman to sell their clothing, which is a well-known Nazi dog whistle.
The company aimed to quickly rectify this by replacing Sweeney with the most intersectionally diverse fashion model of all time.
“We’re really sorry for giving people someone pleasant to look at,” said American Eagle spokesperson Eliott Dorton. “We mistakenly believed that featuring a beautiful woman wearing our jeans would make people want to see our commercials and buy our products, but we instead unintentionally outed ourselves as horribly racist Nazis. We deeply apologize to anyone who was offended by someone visually appealing, and we have officially changed course today by replacing Ms. Sweeney with Chantrese Underwood, a body-positive disabled man who identifies as a woman. We trust that this correction will put us back in everyone’s good graces. Thank you.”
The brand’s new face was thrilled to get the call. “I’m grateful for the opportunity,” Underwood said. “As a fat, transgender double amputee of color, I haven’t seen much representation in fashion ads, so it’s nice to be a part of changing that. I look forward to rolling my chair down the runway and showing the world just how fat and transgender I can be.”
At publishing time, American Eagle had also issued a formal apology for its prominent depictions of the American flag, eagles, and the fact that the word “American” is in its name.
The Washington Commanders aren’t the only sports team in Trump’s crosshairs.
The Supreme Court issued a landmark 6-3 ruling Wednesday that upheld Tennessee’s law banning attempts to transition minors’ genders.
The United States v. Skrmetti case deals a major blow to transgender activists who have argued in favor of permitting underage children to take medicalized steps to identify with their perceived gender identities.
“This case carries with it the weight of fierce scientific and policy debates about the safety, efficacy, and propriety of medical treatments in an evolving field,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority. “The voices in these debates raise sincere concerns; the implications for all are profound.”
He continued, “The Equal Protection Clause does not resolve these disagreements. Nor does it afford us license to decide them as we see best.”
Brandon Showalter, a commentator and journalist with The Christian Post who has extensively researched the transgender movement, called it a “landmark day.”
“This legal battle was about several things, namely whether or not a state — in this case Tennessee — could prohibit controversial medical treatments, to put it mildly, noting that critics of Tennessee’s law now incorrectly believed it violated the Equal Protection Clause,” he said.
Despite the ruling not going as far as some critics might like, Showalter said it’s a “huge win” because it allows around half of all U.S. states with restrictions on puberty blockers, surgeries, and other interventions to keep their laws on the books.
“[It’s] a big win for sanity, a big win for America’s children,” he said. “It’s a major blow against the industry.”
Showalter said the U.S. government is taking an active role in pushing back against the transgender movement, citing a recent report about the Federal Trade Commission’s plans to hold a hearing July 9 on the subject of minors and the transgender issue.
“The Federal Trade Commission [a federal agency] about consumer protection and policing unjust trade practices has decided to, in July, study and likely move against the transgender industry, particularly the marketing and practice of so-called gender-affirming care on minor children,” Showalter previously told CBN News. “And it’s very likely that they will then classify the administration of puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and the performing of body disfiguring surgeries on minors as a kind of unfair or unjust trade.”
The commentator sees this move — and the SCOTUS decision — as evidence of the “turn towards sanity” happening in America right now. He expects the FTC event to include experts and others who will expose what he believes are “unjust, deceptive trade practices and consumer fraud.”
And Showalter believes there’s even more to come.
“[It’s] possible that even more legislation will come forward,” he said. “Now, I’m seeing signs of states trying to make meaningful reparations for detransitioners and protect whistleblowers who have come forward and expose the harm that’s going on within institutions.”
Truth2Freedom's Blog 